Cognitive Bias in Medicolegal Death Investigation

Author:

Oliver William R.1,Fudenberg John2,Howe Julie A.3,Thomas Lindsey C.4

Affiliation:

1. Brody School of Medicine at East Carolina University - Pathology and Laboratory Medicine

2. Clark County Office of the Coroner/Medical Examiner

3. American Board of Medicolegal Death Investigators

4. Hennepin County Medical Examiner's Office

Abstract

Cognitive bias is a popular criticism of medicolegal death investigation. However, many of these criticisms are misplaced. Some have criticized the use of history into medical diagnosis. However, this criticism ignores the fact that the practice of forensic pathology is a medical discipline; it is not a simple mechanical test. History is an integral and necessary part of medical practice, and the lack of history is more dangerous than its use. Criticisms of manner determination often reflect an incorrect understanding of what manner is and what it is properly used for. Many criticisms wrapped in the flag of cognitive bias are in fact errors in scientific orthodoxy, real scientific disagreements, issues of ignorance, and lack of competence or certification, ethical lapses, and political pressure. Solutions that address cognitive bias do not address these issues. Many of the proposed solutions have not themselves been proven to be effective. Alternatives, such as intensive peer review, might address both cognitive bias and these other issues. Any proposed interventions should themselves be able to demonstrate a sound empirical basis.

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Subject

Pathology and Forensic Medicine

Reference8 articles.

1. Manner Determination in Forensic Pathology

2. SchumD.A. The evidential foundations of probabilistic reasoning. 1st ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1994. 568 p.

3. HanzlickR., HunsakerJ.C., DavisG.J. A guide for manner of death classification. 1st ed. Marceline (MO): National Association of Medical Examiners; 2002. 29 p.

4. Intent in Manner Determination

5. PopperK. Objective knowledge: an evolutionary approach. Oxford (UK): Oxford University Press; 1972. 390 p.

Cited by 9 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

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