Admissible expert scientific testimony in federal courts is now judged by the less rigid Federal Rules of Evidence standard, which allows for the use of clinical material that is proven to be sound in methodology.
The physician must help patients understand that all options—further testing, surgery, no action—carry risks and benefits. Disclosing the statistical probability of injury and other possible outcomes might help, but it can also hinder the process.
After assessing the reasons for a patient’s unrealistic hopefulness in the face of clear understanding, a clinician may believe that significant harm will come to the patient if he or she does not acknowledge the seriousness of the illness.
Requirements for informed consent are relatively vague and the exceptions are few, so it is in the physician’s best interest to inform patients about proposed treatment options, ascertain that they understand their choices, and secure their consent.
Michael Farias, MD, MS, MBA and Rahul H. Rathod, MD
A distinguishing feature of a SCAMP is its ability to capture knowledge-based diversions from a recommended pathway and to “learn” from such individualized patient management.
When called to consult or to testify at “sexually violent predator” hearings, medical professionals’ primary task is adapting recognized medical terminology to the SVP label; they are asked to shoehorn medical diagnoses into ill-fitting legal language.