HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

J Am Dent Assoc, Vol 132, No 3, 361-367. © 2001 American Dental Association

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by MASELLA, R. S. Articles by MEISTER, M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by MASELLA, R. S. Articles by MEISTER, M. Related Collections Restoratives

Background. Serving as a forensic consultant or medical expert witness is a professional duty and social responsibility. While objectivity is a hallmark of ethical health care evaluation, conflict arises when medical experts exhibit bias and serve the hiring party’s interests instead of the public’s.

Methods. The authors define different types of expert witnesses and examine the means for improving the quality of testimony. They evaluate professional association codes of ethics, health care education, neutral medical experts and the field of bioethics.

Results. Incorporating case-based analysis of medical expert testimony in the education of health care professionals may elevate the caliber of testimony. Court-appointed neutral experts may overcome some of the problems inherent in professional and product liability litigation. Neutral bioethicists may play a constructive role in mediating medicolegal disputes. Adopting strong professional association codes of ethics requires the consent of all members, and loss of membership for ethics violations may not be a powerful enough deterrent to biased testimony.

Conclusion. Biased testimony contributes to scientifically unfounded liability verdicts. The public ultimately pays for huge monetary settlements via higher costs for all goods and services. Financial incentives in the current professional and product liability system will make it difficult to institute court-appointed neutral expert panels on a widespread basis.

Practice Implications. Dentists should view themselves as clinicians and evaluators. Rendering expert opinions on forensic matters is an ethical part of dental practice. By doing so with honesty and objectivity, dentists serve as a bridge to justice and fulfill a social responsibility.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. O. Bonow, D. P. Zipes, J. L. Anderson, M. D. Cheitlin, L. B. Goldstein, A. O. Grant, D. Faxon, J. A.C. Lima, and R. M. Robertson Task force 5: Expert testimony and opinions J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 19, 2004; 44(8): 1747 - 1749. [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. O. Bonow, D. P. Zipes, J. L. Anderson, M. D. Cheitlin, L. B. Goldstein, A. O. Grant, D. Faxon, J. A. C. Lima, and R. M. Robertson Task Force 5: Expert Testimony and Opinions Circulation, October 19, 2004; 110(16): 2535 - 2537. [Full Text] [PDF]