Reliability of Bioethics Testimony

Author:

Publisher

Humana Press

Reference27 articles.

1. Evelyn Heinrich, on behalf of her husband, George Heinrich, and Henry M. Sienkewicz, on behalf of his mother, Eileen Rose Sienkewicz Jr., Plaintiffs, Appellants, Cross-Appellees, Rosemary Gualtieri, on behalf of her father, Joseph Mayne, and Walter Carl Van Dyke, Representative of the Estate of Walter Carmen Van Dyke, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Elizabeth Dutton Sweet and Frederick H. Grein Jr., Representatives of the Estate of William H. Sweet, M.D., and Massachusetts General Hospital, Defendants, Appellees, Cross-Appellants, United States of America, Defendant, Appellee, Estate of Lee Edward Farr, Associated Universities, Inc., and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Defendants, 308 F.3d 48, 66 (2002 decided), As amended September 16, 2002. US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Heinrich v. Sweet, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4433 (U.S., June 9, 2003).

2. Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet, 308 F.3d 48, 66 (2002).

3. Judge Lynch noted that the expert had failed to differentiate between the state of knowledge before the research in question was conducted and the state of knowledge after the research in question had been conducted. That is, the historical strand of reasoning, which provided an underpinning of the ethics reasoning, was flawed. Judge Lynch reasoned that, in part because of that flaw, the jury verdict for the survivors should be vacated. Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet, 308 F.3d 48, 66 (2002).

4. F. R. Evid. 702: Testimony by Experts: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. As amended effective December 1, 2000.

5. Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3