|
"The doctor should use the same standard and method that he is using in daily practice. (This has been the standard applied to physicians by the federal and state courts).
How do physicians who practice medicine establish causation? Do they say to a patient ""sorry, sir, I need to use the Daubert criteria before I can tell you that your chest pain can be a sign of an aortic aneurysm?"" NO! Do they say to the patient ""sorry, sir, I could not find any epidemiological studies and therefore, go home, I cannot treat you?"" The methodology used by experts such as the forensic toxicologist who testify must be the same methodology of their daily practice of medicine. (Federal and State Courts) But for some reason in some courts, the medical doctor is forced to relinquish the methods used in practice and use impractical rigorous causation standards.
""Courts with especially demanding standards are misled if they believe that they are fairly representing medical practice. Physicians should respond by correcting courts' misinterpretations of medical practice and assisting in the development of legal standards that encourage thoughtful and informed consideration of medical testimony by judges and juries."" Inconsistency in Evidentiary Standards for Medical Testimony, Disorder in the Courts. Jerome P. Kassirer, M.D. Joe S. Cecil, Ph.D., J.D.JAMA, September 2002, V. 288, No 11, p 1382-1387. For detail information visit www.environmentaldiseases.com"
|
