Abstract
SummaryAlthough medical experts are valued in the administration of justice, the cases in the UK of Meadow and others, including most recently Pool, have all contributed to understandable anxiety on the part of doctors who carry out court work. This article uses an in-depth analysis of these cases and details of some other medical regulatory cases to draw out some lessons for potential medical expert witnesses. Although the most recent judgment in Pool leaves a number of unanswered questions, steps are identified that may be taken to reduce the risk of regulatory investigation by the General Medical Council.
Publisher
Royal College of Psychiatrists
Subject
Psychiatry and Mental health
Reference26 articles.
1. R v Turner [1975] 1 All ER 70.
2. Wall N (The Rt Hon Lord Justice) (2008) Medical evidence in child abuse cases: problem areas. Family Law, April: 320–33.
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献