Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2005;330:1027 (30 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1027-a
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
EDITORI am an experienced expert witness working in a state with legislated requirements that all expert witnesses need to agree to before giving their opinion and where the expert is considered to be the court's expert. It has always been my approach to give an opinion based on facts and supported where possible by the scientific literature (the literature used must be referenced in the report).
This requirement works well, although it continues to surprise me that some experts still get away with their opinion with minimal and at times selective supporting evidence, as described by Bishop.1 Expert witness training is now available and should be compulsory for all experts. Such training will without question put pressure on people trained to follow acceptable practices when giving expert opinion and allow a better understanding of the value and role of the trained expert to the courts.
John Vinen, councillor, Australian College of Legal Medicine
Royal North Shore Hospital, Pacific Highway, St Leonards, NSW 2065, Australia jvinen@med.usyd.edu.au
![]()
CiteULike
Complore
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati What's this?