The ethics of health care professionals' opinions for hire

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.