Доступ предоставлен для: Guest
Портал Begell Электронная Бибилиотека e-Книги Журналы Справочники и Сборники статей Коллекции
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants
SJR: 0.145 SNIP: 0.491 CiteScore™: 0.89

ISSN Печать: 1050-6934
ISSN Онлайн: 1940-4379

Выпуски:
Том 30, 2020 Том 29, 2019 Том 28, 2018 Том 27, 2017 Том 26, 2016 Том 25, 2015 Том 24, 2014 Том 23, 2013 Том 22, 2012 Том 21, 2011 Том 20, 2010 Том 19, 2009 Том 18, 2008 Том 17, 2007 Том 16, 2006 Том 15, 2005 Том 14, 2004 Том 13, 2003 Том 12, 2002 Том 11, 2001 Том 10, 2000

Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants

DOI: 10.1615/JLongTermEffMedImplants.v18.i1.520
54 pages

Abstract of "The Case for the Establishment of a Code of Ethics to Govern the Frivolous Use of Forensic Biomechanical Testimony to Resolve Legal Issues Involving Alleged Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders"

Daniel J. Schneck
Biomedical Engineering, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia

Краткое описание

Our legal system is broken—especially as it applies to the railroad industry, governed by the now-outdated Federal Employers Liability Act of 1908. Nation-wide, frivolous law suits are filed by the thousands on behalf of plaintiffs claiming alleged work disorders (WMSDs), and they are winning these law suits on a regular basis. Moreover, the general public is funding these settlements because defendants simply pass the costs and losses along to their clients. Much of the reason for plaintiffs' victories in the courtroom can be attributed to unethical “junk science.” Expert witnesses are knowingly and unethically giving false testimony on issues related to medical causation, and juries are being influenced by such testimony because of misleading presumptions of guilt, unless innocence can be proven. In turn, these presumptions are derived from rather convincing “default settings” that are not challenged effectively, either in depositions or at trial. Contributing to this dilemma is the conspicuous absence of a code of ethics to govern the frivolous use of forensic biomechanical testimony to resolve legal issues involving alleged WMSDs. Despite the impact of Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, which was supposed to alleviate these concerns, there is no policy in place to effectively govern the admission and use of scientific evidence—especially biomedical/biomechanical evidence—in settling disputes involving WMSDs. Experts are not being held to strict scientific standards; judges and juries tend naturally to “lean” in favor of plaintiffs (the “David-and-Goliath” syndrome); and the scientific community, through its professional organizations, is not doing a good job of policing the legal community in order to force it to disallow unsubstantiated conjecture and illegitimate fact-based opinions. No doubt some of these law suits are indeed legitimate, and the verdicts are justified and proper. But to deal with those that are not, this paper makes the case for why a code of ethics governing litigation-based biomechanical testimony is long overdue. Discussed are the following: the differences between medical differential diagnosis with presumed cause, and hard scientific evidence proving actual cause; using non sequiturs (including circular reasoning) to arrive at conclusions that do not follow directly from the reasoning that leads up to them; unsubstantiated allegations based on pure conjecture (including bias and the skewed use of biostatistics); several deceptive, misinformed, and misguided “default settings” that are routinely considered to be axiomatic and lead to self-fulling prophecies; a flagrant disregard and abuse of scientific logic and critical thinking (including pitfalls that derive from the famous adages, se non e vero, e ben trovato, circulus in probando, post hoc ergo propter hoc; and petition principii; contradictory observations, wherein precisely opposite outcomes can seemingly be reconciled by the same prevailing theory of causation; failure to account for confounding variables; the “guilty-unless-proven-innocent” syndrome (including proving negatives); the difference between “correlation” and “causation” (as it concerns epidemiological evidence); the difference between “discomfort” and “disease” (as it concerns ergonomic evidence); the straw-that-broke-the-camel's-back argument; and the “DQ(define and quantify) principle” in science.


Articles with similar content:

Case for the Establishment of a Code of Ethics to Govern the Frivolous Use of Forensic Biomechanical Testimony to Resolve Legal Issues Involving Alleged Work-Related Musculoskeletal Disorders
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.17, 2007, issue 4
Daniel J. Schneck
Abstract of "Come Fly with Me: A Critique of Andrew Stark's Proposed Restriction on Biomedical Technology"
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.18, 2008, issue 1
Felicia NImue Ackerman
Presumptions of Scientific Knowledge in the Evolution of Ethical Policies for Nascent Individuals
Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal, Vol.3, 2012, issue 4
James L. Sherley
Abstract of "Medical Devices−Research, Development, and Clinical Use Ethical Issues"
Journal of Long-Term Effects of Medical Implants, Vol.18, 2008, issue 1
Vijay V. Rasquinha
Imposing Harm to Preserve Life: The Ethics of Physician Involvement in Developing Nonlethal Technology
Ethics in Biology, Engineering and Medicine: An International Journal, Vol.5, 2014, issue 1
Benjamin A. Drew