Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Judging doctors.

Geoffrey L Davies1

  • 1New Farm, Queensland, Australia. gldavies@netspace.net.au

ANZ Journal of Surgery
|September 7, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Judges evaluate medical expert opinions in personal injury cases, medical negligence lawsuits, and public inquiries. This analysis examines legal principles and identifies areas for improvement in judicial review of medical conduct.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Professionalism: the James Pryor memorial lecture.

ANZ journal of surgeryยท2007
See all related articles

Area of Science:

  • Medical Law
  • Judicial Review
  • Medical Ethics

Background:

  • Judges frequently encounter medical opinions and conduct in various legal proceedings.
  • These situations range from personal injury claims and civil negligence suits to criminal charges against medical professionals.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To delineate the distinct legal scenarios where judicial scrutiny of medical opinions and conduct is required.
  • To analyze the specific legal principles and considerations applicable to each scenario.
  • To identify and critique existing defects and illogicalities within these legal frameworks and propose improvements.

Main Methods:

  • Comparative legal analysis of judicial obligations in personal injury, medical negligence, and criminal cases involving doctors.
  • Examination of judicial roles in Commissions of Inquiry concerning medical services.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Identification of common factors and divergent principles across different legal contexts.

    • Main Results:

    • Four primary situations requiring judicial pronouncements on medical matters are identified: personal injury claims, medical negligence suits, public inquiries, and criminal proceedings.
    • Each situation presents unique legal considerations and principles.
    • Certain legal frameworks governing these situations contain identifiable defects and illogicalities.

    Conclusions:

    • Judicial review of medical opinions and conduct is a complex, multi-faceted legal domain.
    • There is a need for refinement and improvement in the legal principles and procedures applied in these cases.
    • Addressing identified defects will enhance the fairness and efficacy of the justice system in matters involving medical expertise.