Abstract
The valorization of scientific evidence provided by the expert as evidence in the trial framework has been
revised, as well as the role of the judge, in light of the assumptions derived from the Daubert Judgment.
The criterion of “general acceptance” of evidence obtained from the published literature in journals
subjected to peer-review and the expert’s reputation can be helpful, particularly in cases where there is an
open debate within the scientific community. It is the judge, however, who must take on the role of
gatekeeper of the validity of evidence, to consent to its probatory admissibility, through a preliminary
comprehension of the methods of science. The evaluation of reliability and admissibility of evidence is
also reflected in the areas of medical malpractice and professional liability. Standards of care may be
derived from an analysis not only of the guidelines, but also of other scientific sources to be subjected to
the usual proof of admissibility, as well as new research paths that take account of personalized medicine
and the application of guidelines to the individual.
Lingua originale | English |
---|---|
Titolo della pubblicazione ospite | P5 Medicine and Justice |
Pagine | 75-92 |
Numero di pagine | 18 |
Stato di pubblicazione | Pubblicato - 2017 |
Keywords
- EXPERT WITNESS
- LAW
- PROOF
- SCIENCE