Abstract
Chapter 1 touched on the conditions under which bioethics expert testimony can be helpful in judicial reasoning. Chapters 6–8 examine, in depth, the requirement that such testimony be reliable. Demonstrating the reliability of bioethics expert testimony is potentially a significant barrier to the use of bioethics in law, in part, because bioethics reasoning is so eclectic.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Endnotes
Evelyn Heinrich, on behalf of her husband, George Heinrich, and Henry M. Sienkewicz, on behalf of his mother, Eileen Rose Sienkewicz Jr., Plaintiffs, Appellants, Cross-Appellees, Rosemary Gualtieri, on behalf of her father, Joseph Mayne, and Walter Carl Van Dyke, Representative of the Estate of Walter Carmen Van Dyke, Plaintiffs, Appellants, v. Elizabeth Dutton Sweet and Frederick H. Grein Jr., Representatives of the Estate of William H. Sweet, M.D., and Massachusetts General Hospital, Defendants, Appellees, Cross-Appellants, United States of America, Defendant, Appellee, Estate of Lee Edward Farr, Associated Universities, Inc., and Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Defendants, 308 F.3d 48, 66 (2002 decided), As amended September 16, 2002. US Supreme Court certiorari denied by Heinrich v. Sweet, 2003 U.S. LEXIS 4433 (U.S., June 9, 2003).
Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet, 308 F.3d 48, 66 (2002).
Judge Lynch noted that the expert had failed to differentiate between the state of knowledge before the research in question was conducted and the state of knowledge after the research in question had been conducted. That is, the historical strand of reasoning, which provided an underpinning of the ethics reasoning, was flawed. Judge Lynch reasoned that, in part because of that flaw, the jury verdict for the survivors should be vacated. Heinrich ex rel. Heinrich v. Sweet, 308 F.3d 48, 66 (2002).
F. R. Evid. 702: Testimony by Experts: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. As amended effective December 1, 2000.
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).
General Electric Company, et al., Petitioners v. Robert K. Joiner, et al., 522 U.S. 136 (1997).
Kumho Tire Company, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Patrick Carmichael, etc., et al., 526 U.S. 137 (1999).
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., 509 U.S. 579, 597 (1993).
Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 156 (1999).
General Electric Company, et al., Petitioners v. Robert K. Joiner, et al., 522 U.S. 136, 142 (1997).
Spielman B. Bioethics testimony: Untangling the strands and testing their reliability. J Law, Med & Ethics 2005;33:222–233 at 226–227.
Federal Advisory Committee Note to F.R.E. 702, citing Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 1176 (1999).
Imwinkelried EJ. Expert testimony by ethicists: What should be the norm? J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:198–221; Spielman B. Bioethics testimony: Untangling the strands and testing their reliability. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:222–233; Latham SR. Expert Bioethics Testimony. J Law Med Ethics 2005;33:242–247.
Myrna M. Izidor, as Personal Representative, Appellant, v. Joseph E. Knight, et al., Respondents, 117 Wn. App. 1070 (2003).
In re Baby K, 832 F. Supp. 1022 (1993).
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001 at 15.
Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of biomedical ethics. 5th ed. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2001 at 16.
Izidor v. Knight, deposition of Thomas R. McCormick on May 29, 2001, at p. 106 lines 17–19.
Izidor v. Knight, deposition of Thomas R. McCormick on May 29, 2001, at p. 107 line 25 to p. 109 line 6.
Izidor v. Knight, deposition of Thomas R. McCormick on May 29, 2001, at p.109 line 18 to p. 110 line 23.
Few specifications in bioethics are generally accepted. The variety of principlists’ specifications in several “standard” cases is evident in Beauchamp TL. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. J Med Ethics 2003;29:269–274; Gillon R. Four scenarios. J Med Ethics 2003;29:267–268; Gillon R. Primum non nocere in paediatrics. In: Burgio GR, Lantos J, eds. Primum non nocere today. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 1994:29–38; Macklin R. Applying the four principles. J Med Ethics 2003;29:275–280; Savulescu J. Festschrift edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics in honour of Raanan Gillon. J Med Ethics 2003;29:265–266.
See Kuczewski M. Bioethics’ consensus on method: Who could ask for anything more? In Nelson HL, ed. Stories and their limits: Narrative approaches to bioethics, New York: Routledge, 1997:134–152 at136.
Gillon R. Primum non nocere in paediatrics. In: Burgio GR, Lantos JD, eds. Primum non nocere today. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science B.V., 1994:29–38 at 33; Gillon R. Four scenarios. J Med Ethics 2003;29:267–268 at 267.
Fairfax Hospital v. Baby K, deposition of Robert M. Veatch on March 31, 1993, at p. 112 line 8 to p. 113 line 20.
This rule is one of the few that is accepted in bioethics regardless of method. See Beauchamp TL. Methods and principles in biomedical ethics. J Med Ethics 2003;29:269–274; Gillon R. Four scenarios. J Med Ethics 2003;29:267–268; Gillon R. Primum non nocere in paediatrics. In: Burgio GR, Lantos JD, eds. Primum non nocere today. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1994:29–38; Macklin R. Applying the four principles. J Med Ethics 2003;29:275–280; Savulescu J. Festschrift edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics in honour of Raanan Gillon. J Med Ethics 2003;29:265–266.
Fairfax Hospital v. Baby K, deposition of John C. Fletcher on April 13, 1993, at p. 143 lines 4–24.
Fairfax Hospital v. Baby K deposition of John C. Fletcher on April 13, 1993, at p. 39 line 3 to p. 40 line 10.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Humana Press Inc.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
(2007). Reliability of Bioethics Testimony. In: Bioethics in Law. Humana Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-295-3_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-295-3_7
Publisher Name: Humana Press
Print ISBN: 978-1-58829-434-0
Online ISBN: 978-1-59745-295-3
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)