[The problem of double loyalty: medical expert opinion and its cost]

Legal procedures, dealing with medical issues like body damages or medical malpractice, are based upon expert medical witnesses. These are essential because the parties involved in the process do not hold the knowledge needed for the correct evaluation of the medical facts relevant to the discussed case. When such cases arrive at court, there are always at least two contradictive medical expert testimonies that are based on the same facts (otherwise, the case would have been settled outside the courtroom). The medical experts are paid for their services, a fact which raises criticism by both legal and medical systems and also creates an atmosphere of suspicion towards their testimony. Many questions are raised in light of the potential damage of such testimonies on the one hand, and the known difficulties of defining "the reasonable standard of care" for a particular case on the other. Worldwide, attempts are made to unify and standardize medical expert testimonies. In this review we present and elaborate on some of the criticism, as well as possible solutions (including one proposed by the authors) with regard to expert medical witnesses.