Skip to main content
×
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: March 2012

44 - The ethics of expert testimony

from 6 - Anesthesiologists, the state, and society
Summary
Research on the management of pain and other symptoms is crucial to provide better care for acute, postoperative, and chronic symptoms, as well as better symptom management at the end of life. Some aspects do present difficulties more specific to the context of symptom management studies. These include difficulties related to scientific methodology, fair subject selection, obtaining a favorable risk/benefit ratio, and informed consent. Researchers always have the obligation to obtain informed consent from research subjects. Even with explicit patient consent, the researcher has the obligation to minimize risk and discomfort to the patient. Research involving symptomatic relief at the end of life is ethical, but requires special considerations. Particular attention to subject comfort and safety is important in placebo-controlled trials. Patient assessment of benefits and burdens may shift during the trial and require reconsideration.
Recommend this book

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this book to your organisation's collection.

Clinical Ethics in Anesthesiology
  • Online ISBN: 9780511841361
  • Book DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511841361
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to *
×

References

1*Guideline for Expert Witness Qualifications and Testimony. (2008). American Society of Anesthesiologistst. http://www.asahq.org/publicationsAndServices/standards/07.pdf accessed May 19, 2009 (Fig 1).
2* Bucy, P.C. (1975). The medical expert witness in malpractice suits. JAMA, 232, 1352–3.
3Shilkret v Annapolis Hospital Emergency Association, 349 A 2d 245, 249–250 (Md 1975)
4 Peters, P.G. (2002). “Empirical Evidence and Malpractice Litigation”, 37 Wake Forest Law Review, 2002, 757, at 759.
5 Meadow and Sunstein, (2001). “Statistics, not Experts”, 51 Duke Law Journal 629, at 630–31. 2001
6 Moss, S., Opinion for Sale: Confessions of an Expert Witness http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/March-April-2003/review_marapr03_moss.html#, accessed May 19, 2009.
7Maryland, DC, New York, and on other grounds in WA.
8Donald C. Austin v AANS, 253F3d 967 (2001).

Further reading

Andrew, L.B. (2006). Expert witness testimony: the ethics of being a medical expert witness. Emerg Med Clin North Am, 24(3), 715–31.
Baldas, T. (2005). Nonexperts taking the Stand. National Law Journal March 21. http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1111572309683 accessed May 19, 2009.
Crosby, E. (2007). Medical malpractie and anesthesiology: literature review and role of the expert witness. Can J Anaesth, 54(3), 227–41.
Meadow, W. and Lantos, J.D. (1996). Expert testimony, legal reasoning, and justice. The case for adopting a data-based standard of care in allegations of medical negligence in the NICU. Clin Perinatol, 23(3), 583–95.
Rabeinerson, D. and Green, Y. (2007). The problem of double loyalty: medical expert opinion and its cost. Harefuah, 146(7), 539–43.
Weinstein, J.B. (1999). Expert witness testimony: a trial judge’s perspective. Neurol Clin, 17(2), 355–62.