[The unwisdom of reason and social injustice]

This paper attempts to show that in cases of conflict between a patient and any given agency (e.g. insurance company), the conclusions to which the expert will arrive at are often biassed by the spirit of the law. So when dealing with "responsibility" the law is often stressing a concept which is closer to that of "guilt" (the patient is guilty or the insurance company, or society are guilty). This then brings about an endless conflict where neither party is ready to accept fault. Thus, all measures which could lead to an adequate solution seem to be automatically excluded. Therefore, both parties find themselves in an inevitable deadlock due to the "causal" appreciation of the problem to be solved. The above situation could be avoided if the focus were shifted on results and the means to attain them, instead of trying to establish the origin of a given behaviour. In other words, a "system theory" approach appears to be the best frame of reference for the expert. Such an approach would not only have an impact on the spirit of the law, but also throw a new light on the role of the expert, who would no longer have to seek for more or less fair solutions, but would be able to propose constructive measures liable to solve the conflict.