Negligence of medical experts: US legal system is not conducive

doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1027-c

BMJ 2005;330:1027 (30 April), doi:10.1136/bmj.330.7498.1027-c

Letter

Negligence of medical experts

US legal system is not conducive

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

Editor—Bishop calls attention to the large gap betweencompetent clinical opinion and admissible expert testimony.¹This gap exists because experts are responding to performanceexpectations that differ markedly from a patient care setting,and because people who are not doctors control the oversightof the testimony that is designed to meet these legal expectations.

Incorporating physician peer review of expert testimony intothe legal system could eliminate the current opinion doublestandard, but full implementation of peer review of expert testimonywould require organised medicine to fill a new and powerfulrole in malpractice litigation. Unfortunately, this role willnot be created simply because doctors convince themselves ofthe superiority of doctors' standards. Furthermore, demonstratingthe failures of the current system of testimony oversight isunlikely to produce a voluntarily transfer of oversight powerfrom the courts to doctors.

In the United States, physician reviewers attempting to sanctionshoddy expert . . . [Full text of this article]

Elliott Foucar, pathologist

14029 Wind Mountain Road NE, Albuquerque, NM 87112, USA foucell@aol.com