[Legal and forensic medical problems of postmortem donation]. / Pravovye i sudebno-meditsinskie problemy posmertnogo donorstva.

The article is devoted to legal and forensic medical problems of postmortem donation. The substantive provisions of postmortem donation, as well as normative legal documents regulating the processes of organs harvesting from deceased persons for subsequent transplantation and governing the work of transplantologists and forensic medical experts have been considered. The practical examples illustrating the essence and nature of the problem of postmortem forensic medical expertise of persons with absent organs has been given and the importance of the participation of a forensic medical expert involved in the decision-making process on possibility (or impossibility) of the corpse's organs and tissues explantation without prejudice to the further expert examination has been emphasized. The authors pay particular attention to the inadequacy of the legal framework, including the lack of a clear understanding of the legal status of the person holding the position of forensic medical expert, who provides an expert opinion on the organs' explantation.

Forensic Neurology and the Role of Neurologists in Forensic Evaluations.

There is a clear need for experts with the requisite knowledge and experience to offer medicolegal opinions pertaining to various neuropsychiatric conditions. There is also an important distinction between clinical and medicolegal roles, and the need for training and expertise applicable to forensic assessment. But there remain few available experts with credentials spanning neuropsychiatry and forensic assessment. This creates a dilemma whereby parties involved in litigation featuring neuropsychiatric illness or injury are frequently forced to choose between experts with either knowledge and skills applicable to neuropsychiatric conditions or experts with skills and experience applicable to forensic assessment. Either choice introduces risk. Whether flawed medicolegal opinions are a consequence of deficient medical knowledge or an inadequate forensic evaluation process, the result remains the same, with triers of fact potentially being exposed to problematic testimony. There is, however, a more fundamental problem that implicates patient care more broadly: spurious dichotomies created by the historical segregation of psychiatry and neurology. Optimizing clinical care for patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, improving medical education in support of such care, and enabling forensic neuropsychiatric assessment must then start with more proactive efforts to reintegrate psychiatry and neurology.

Bite marks: To opine or not to opine?

Much has been written about bite mark comparisons and bite mark analysis. It has largely been written for, and remained within the domain of, the forensic odontologist despite the limited number of such specialists and the even smaller subset who have expertise in this area. For those health professionals who work in the field of clinical forensic medicine, most will not have access to a forensic odontologist. Courts can be reticent about the costs involved in obtaining another expert opinion. For health professionals, who will likely encounter more bite marks in their career than forensic odontologists, the difficulty is knowing what can legitimately be opined about such injuries.

Medical and Legal Uncertainties and Controversies in "Shaken Baby Syndrome" or Infant "Abusive Head Trauma".

Uncertainties and controversies surround "shaken baby syndrome" or infant "abusive head trauma". We explore Vinaccia v The Queen (2022) 70 VR 36; [2022] VSCA 107 and other selected cases from Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. On expert opinion alone, a "triad" of clinical signs (severe retinal haemorrhages, subdural haematoma and encephalopathy) is dogmatically attributed diagnostically to severe deliberate shaking with or without head trauma. However, the evidence for this mechanism is of the lowest scientific level and of low to very low quality and therefore unreliable. Consequently, expert opinion should not determine legal outcomes in prosecuted cases. Expert witnesses should reveal the basis of their opinions and the uncertainties and controversies of the diagnosis. Further, the reliability of admissions of guilt while in custody should be considered cautiously. We suggest abandonment of the inherently inculpatory diagnostic terms "shaken baby syndrome" and "abusive head trauma" and their appropriate replacement with "infantile retinodural haemorrhage".

Forensic psychiatric issues in intellectual disability.

Forensic psychiatrists and neuropsychiatrists are likely to encounter individuals with intellectual disability as they are over-represented in the judicial system. These individuals may have the full range of mental illnesses and comorbid conditions, including physical infirmity, sensory deficits, language impairment, and maladaptive behaviors. They are frequently disadvantaged in the judicial system due to lack of comprehension, lack of accommodations, and stigmatization. Decision making capacity may need to be assessed for health care, sexual autonomy, marriage, financial management, making a will, and need for guardianship. The usual approach to conducting an evaluation needs adaptation to fit the unique characteristics and circumstances of the individual with intellectual disability. The forensic consultant can assist attorneys, defendants, and victims in recommending accommodations and the expert witness can provide education to juries.

Knowledge and attitudes of Polish prosecutors and general Polish population in regard to post-mortem computed tomography in 2019. / Trudne poczatki psychiatrii sadowo-lekarskiej w Imperium Rosyjskim w XVIII stuleciu.

This publication reveals the origins of forensic psychiatry in tsarist Russia during a selected historical period. The article reveals the first forensic and medical examinations of the mental state of defendants, as well as the first major legal regulations in this area. The issue of the participation of a medical expert (usually physicians) as an expert witness in court proceedings in the examination of the mental state is discussed from legal and historical, as well as historical and medical aspects.

Trauma-Focused Mitigation Testimony in Capital Sentencing Hearings.

When capital trials of convicted defendants reach the sentencing phase, forensic mental health experts often testify as part of mitigation evidence. Three aspects of such testimony hold particular promise. First, developmental traumas in the lives of the defendants are especially well conceptualized in terms of complex posttraumatic stress disorder, as described in the ICD-11. Second, Cunningham's framework, which critically examines the impact of harmful and protective factors over the course of a defendant's development, allows for an examination of moral culpability apart from legal culpability. Third, specific training on trauma and its effects on personality and psychopathology allows forensic mental health professionals to more skillfully complete trauma mitigation evaluations.

Aspectos médico-legais do olho / Medicolegal aspects of the eye

RESUMO A oftalmologia fornece um campo vasto de conhecimentos necessários à medicina legal e às perícias médicas. O presente artigo objetivou revisar as informações na perícia criminal e cível, as repercussões da morte e os achados post-mortem que o exame ocular pode fornecer. Demonstrou-se que a perícia ocular é complexa e multifacetada, fornecendo ferramentas importantes para a classificação das lesões corporais, verificação da capacidade laboral, investigação da causa mortis e estimativa do tempo de morte.

ABSTRACT Ophthalmology provides a vast field of knowledge necessary for forensic medicine and medical expertise. The present article aimed to review the information on criminal and civil medical expertise, the repercussions of death, and the postmortem findings that the eye examination can provide. Ocular expertise has been shown to be complex and multifaceted, providing important tools to classify bodily injuries, verify work capacity, investigate the cause of death, and estimate the time of death.

Establishing the shadowline: the border between legally acceptable and unacceptable standards of surgical practice.

INTRODUCTION: Our study investigated how the standard of surgical care is assessed within the English and Welsh litigation process. The 'shadowline' represents the dividing line between acceptable and unacceptable standards of care. Our hypothesis was that different assessors risk adopting materially different interpretations regarding the acceptable standard of care. Any variation in the interpretation of where the shadowline falls will create uncertainty and unfairness to surgeons and patients alike. METHODS: We summarised the legal literature and suggested the factors affecting the assessment of surgical standards. We illustrated our findings on distribution curves. RESULTS: There was a risk that the shape of the curve and the location of the shadowline may vary according to the assessor. Importantly, a gap may have developed between the legal and clinical shadowlines in respect of the consenting process. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: We suggested how a gap between the surgical and legal shadow lines could be narrowed. Clinical governance, balanced literature and realistic expert assessments were all part of the solution.

For debate: the short report - legal and ethical implications.

At the outset of an alleged medical negligence case, it is common for medical expert witnesses to be asked to write a brief report, sometimes called a short report or a screening report. Such requests may come from solicitors acting for a claimant or for the defence. Reassurances may be offered that the opinion given will not be disclosed. However, this is very often not the case. Doctors and the instructing solicitors need to be aware of the legal and ethical implications of providing such instructions. The medical expert must be aware that their duty to the court begins from the time of receipt of a letter from a solicitor requesting such a report.

Navigating the Regulatory Landscape to Develop Pediatric Oncology Drugs: Expert Opinion Recommendations.

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials.

In the last few decades, great progress has been made in developing new treatments for adult cancers. However, development of new treatments for childhood cancers has been much slower. To encourage drug companies (sponsors) to develop effective treatments for childhood cancer, authorities in the United States (US) and Europe have made new rules for drug development. Under these new rules, sponsors developing drugs for specific cancers in adults have to consider whether the target of that drug also causes cancers in children. If this is the case, sponsors have to carry out clinical studies of their drug in children who have cancer that is caused by the same drug target. In this article, we describe some reasons for why drug development for childhood cancers has been slow and the rules created to address this problem in the US and Europe. We share some recommendations to help sponsors maximize their chances of developing an effective drug in children while satisfying the new rules. Specifically, sponsors need to be aware of the differences between studying drugs in adults versus children and how these influence the way the drug is tested. We make several recommendations for each stage of the development process, beginning with what is needed even before human studies begin. Finally, we highlight some issues that sponsors need to think about during drug development, from the preclinical stage (testing drugs in cells and animals) through to clinical testing in adults and pediatric patients with cancer.

The Litigation Complexity of Posttraumatic Headaches.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: This review explores the workings of the legal process in posttraumatic headache (PTH) claims by discussing representative court cases, the approaches taken by both plaintiff and defense attorneys in evaluating a client with PTH, and the role of the expert witness. This discussion also examines the question of whether or not litigation prolongs the symptoms of PTH and concussion, looking at the issues of malingering and the psychological effect of litigation. RECENT FINDINGS: Litigation prolongs recovery of PTH, primarily not from malingering but rather due to the psychological mindset of the plaintiff as created by the litigation process. Just as the medical community struggles with PTH diagnosis, mechanism, and treatment, the legal system grapples with identifying valid claims for PTH. Psychological support is an important component for PTH recovery to more effectively deal with the psychological impact of litigation and the concept of perceived injustice.

Expert evidence: Frequently asked questions.

This Faculty of Forensic and Legal Medicine guidance on the law of expert evidence is set out in the form of a series of frequently asked questions.