This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Leo Uzych, JD, MPH
Wallingford, Pa

JAMA. 1985;253(4):509.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.—

The recent editorial by Dr Lundberg,¹ together with two related MEDICAL NEWS stories^2,3 in the same issue of THE JOURNAL, present an articulate, informed analysis of selected issues associated with the physician in the role of courtroom witness.

Regrettably, law as practiced in the courtroom and medicine seem often-times to function as virtual polar opposites. Litigation by its nature is adversarial, whereas science is directed toward objectivity and truth gathering. Therefore, the expert medical witness may suffer a wrenching experience as a seasoned trial attorney tortures the "truth" in the effort to obtain a good result for the client.

The suggestion in the editorial that it may be better for the court, rather than the litigants, to obtain the best, unbiased expert consultation and testimony is worthy of serious consideration. I have some questions about this, however. How will the court ascertain the "best" witness? . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Footnotes
Edited by Drummond Rennie, MD, Senior Contributing Editor.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?