These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: [Medico-legal opinions in penal cases provided by clinicians and forensic medicine specialists--comparative analysis].
    Author: Chowaniec C, Chowaniec M, Nowak A.
    Journal: Arch Med Sadowej Kryminol; 2005; 55(4):257-60. PubMed ID: 16498963.
    Abstract:
    From the practice of the Forensic Medicine Department, Medical University of Silesia, Katowice it appears that in criminal cases the level of medico-legal opinions provided by experts appointed by the district court or 'ad hoc' is very low. The analysis of the chosen files shoved a divergence of opinions given to the adopted motions as well as numerous offences to regulations in the nature of a consultative error. In the paper the authors have made an attempt to appraise causes of the above mentioned problems such as: 1. the lack of medico-legal knowledge and experience in court experts. 2. excessive ease of registration to the panel of court experts and the lack of processes which verify the qualifications of experts. 3. the lack of judicial control over expert's opinions and common acceptance of their work. 4. ignorance of the obligatory penal law. 5. ignorance of the basic rules for giving medico-legal opinions (legal consequences, casual nexus). 6. excessive but groundless self-confidence in experts. 7. the lack of a correct way of thinking and conclusion making. The aim of the paper was to pay close attention to the absolute need of verification of court experts' qualifications and work.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]