首页> 外文期刊>Journal of long-term effects of medical implants >Case for the establishment of a code of ethics to govern the frivolous use of forensic biomechanical testimony to resolve legal issues involving alleged work-related musculoskeletal disorders.
【24h】

Case for the establishment of a code of ethics to govern the frivolous use of forensic biomechanical testimony to resolve legal issues involving alleged work-related musculoskeletal disorders.

机译:制定道德守则以管理轻率使用法医生物力学证词解决涉及涉嫌与工作有关的肌肉骨骼疾病的法律问题的案例。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

If the legal system is to be an effective means for resolving issues of medical causation, then it is imperative that scientific evidence be presented ethically, fairly, and objectively. This is especially true for cases involving alleged occupational illness and injury. In particular, for a number of years, the railroad industry has been plagued by such allegations, being forced to defend numerous baseless lawsuits claiming work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs). These cases are litigated pursuant to the Federal Employers' Liability Act-a congressional act passed in 1908, long before today's workers' compensation statutes were enacted. Because the FELA has no compensatory damages cap, plaintiffs' lawyers, relying on the testimony of their expert witnesses, often roll the dice with poorly substantiated (or even unsubstantiated) scientific hypotheses, in hopes of convincing juries to award significant damages. Although good science does not support these causation hypotheses, all too often the science itself is not argued properly; or even worse, it is argued unethically (using junk science), such that juries are either deliberately misled or are certainly not provided with the information they need to make the right decisions. That is to say, expert witnesses are knowingly and unethically giving false (or at least naive) testimony on issues related to medical causation; and juries are being influenced by such testimony because of misleading presumptions of guilt unless innocence can be proven. In turn, these presumptions are derived from rather convincing default settings that are not challenged effectively, either in depositions or at trial. Contributing to this dilemma is the conspicuous absence of an enforceable code of ethics to govern the frivolous use of forensic biomechanical testimony in resolving legal issues involving alleged WMSDs.
机译:如果法律制度要成为解决医疗因果关系问题的有效手段,那么必须以道德,公正和客观的方式提供科学证据。对于涉嫌职业病和伤害的案件尤其如此。尤其是多年来,铁路行业一直受到此类指控的困扰,被迫为许多无用的诉讼辩护,这些诉讼声称与工作有关的肌肉骨骼疾病(WMSD)。这些案件是根据1908年通过的《联邦雇主责任法》提起的,比今天的《工人赔偿法》颁布得早。由于FELA没有赔偿上限,因此原告的律师经常依靠其专业证人的证词,以没有充分根据(甚至没有根据)的科学假设掷骰子,以期说服陪审团判给重大损害赔偿。尽管好的科学不支持这些因果假设,但很多时候却没有对科学本身进行适当的论证。甚至更糟的是,这是不道德的论点(使用垃圾科学),以至于陪审团被故意误导了,或者肯定没有获得做出正确决策所需的信息。就是说,专家证人在与医疗因果关系的问题上有意识地和不道德地提供了虚假(或至少是幼稚的)证词;除非能够证明无罪,否则由于误导性的有罪推定,陪审团将受到此类证词的影响。反过来,这些推论来自令人信服的默认设置,这些默认设置在沉积或审判中均未受到有效挑战。造成这一难题的原因是,明显缺乏可强制执行的道德守则来管理在解决涉嫌WMSD的法律问题时轻描淡写使用法医生物力学证词。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号