Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Feigned Consensus: Usurping The Law In Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions, Keith A. Findley, D. Michael Risinger, Patrick D. Barnes, Julie A. Mack, David A. Moran, Barry C. Scheck, Thomas L. Bohan
Feigned Consensus: Usurping The Law In Shaken Baby Syndrome/Abusive Head Trauma Prosecutions, Keith A. Findley, D. Michael Risinger, Patrick D. Barnes, Julie A. Mack, David A. Moran, Barry C. Scheck, Thomas L. Bohan
Articles
Few medico-legal matters have generated as much controversy--both in the medical literature and in the courtroom--as Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS), now known more broadly as Abusive Head Trauma (AHT). The controversies are of enormous significance in the law because child abuse pediatricians claim, on the basis of a few non-specific medical findings supported by a weak and methodologically flawed research base, to be able to “diagnose” child abuse, and thereby to provide all of the evidence necessary to satisfy all of the legal elements for criminal prosecution (or removal of children from their parents). It is a matter, therefore, in …
Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, And Actual Innocence: Getting It Right, Keith A. Findley, Patrick D. Barnes, David A. Moran, Waney Squier
Shaken Baby Syndrome, Abusive Head Trauma, And Actual Innocence: Getting It Right, Keith A. Findley, Patrick D. Barnes, David A. Moran, Waney Squier
Articles
In the past decade, the existence of shaken baby syndrome (SBS) has been called into serious question by biomechanical studies, the medical and legal literature, and the media. As a result of these questions, SBS has been renamed abusive head trauma (AHT). This is, however, primarily a terminological shift: like SBS, AHT refers to the two-part hypothesis that one can reliably diagnose shaking or abuse from three internal findings (subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and encephalopathy) and that one can identify the perpetrator based on the onset of symptoms. Over the past decade, we have learned that this hypothesis fits poorly …
Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane
Witness--Competency Of An Allopathic Expert In The Field Of Homeopathy--Opinion On Very Fact The Jury Must Determine, Victor H. Lane
Articles
Van Sickle v. Doolittle, (Ia., 1918), 169 N. W. 141, was an action for malpractice against a physician of the homeopathic school of medicine. Upon the trial, a physician of the allopathic school was called, and after testifying that he was unskilled in the science of homeopathy, was allowed to testify that the treatment shown to have been given to the patient by defendant, would produce no physiological effect, and that proper treatment required the giving of such medicines as would produce such effect. This was held error upon the ground that the defendant was called to treat the patient …
Waiver Of The Statutory Protection To The Confidential Relation Of Physician And Patient, Harry B. Hutchins
Waiver Of The Statutory Protection To The Confidential Relation Of Physician And Patient, Harry B. Hutchins
Articles
Waiver of the Tatutory Protection of the Confidential Relation of Physician and Patient.--The subject of the disclosure by the physician upon the witness stand of confidential communications between himself and his patient has already received attention in this journal: 2 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, p.687; 3 MICHIGAN LAW REVIEW, p. 311. The case of Long v. Garey Investment Company, decided by the Iowa Supreme Court December 15, 1906, may be briefly noticed, as it discusses a phase of the subject in regard to which the courts are not in entire harmony, namely, the waiver of the privilege that the statute confers.
The Compensation Of Medical Witnesses, Harry B. Hutchins
The Compensation Of Medical Witnesses, Harry B. Hutchins
Articles
The power to compel testimony is inherent in every court, for without it justice could constantly be thwarted. Generally all persons may be compelled to give evidence that is relevant to the matter in controversy. If, therefore, a person who has been duly summoned as a witness at a particular trial absents himself therefrom, without just cause, or attending, refuses to give evidence or to answer questions when directed so to do by the court, he is liable to punishment for contempt.1 But there are limitations upon the general rule, some based upon principles of legal policy and some upon …