Abstract
Physicians and providers trained in scientific reasoning are confused by the process by which legal facts and legal proof are presented and offered during litigation and in a court of law. Legal facts are not scientific facts; legal proof is not scientific proof; and legal conclusions are not derived in the same way as are scientific conclusions. Such distinctions are not simply academic; they are highly practical, and a better understanding of the legal process can help providers who face with litigation both better prepare for and better participate in the legal process. All professions have, to some extent, a vocabulary specific to the profession; for example, the anatomy, biochemistry, pharmacology, and physiology upon which medical care professions are based provide a basis for much of the specific vocabulary of the healthcare professions. In a similar fashion, the legal lexicon is replete with terms rooted in Latin and English common law traditions. Professional terminology is also the basis for terms of art, plain words that have specific meaning to those in that profession; professional terminology is how professional peers communicate effectively and efficiently. Medical professionals often sense that legal terms, legal reasoning, and legal process are meant to confuse; however, it’s important to realize that professional terms, reasoning and process, are integral parts of each profession. A better understanding of legal terminology and process can only serve to build a better understanding of the larger system in which healthcare is an integral part.
Keywords
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 subscriptionsReferences
Szalados JE. Legal reasoning: legal process, legal proof and why it is confusing to clinical scientists. In: Szalados JE, editor. Ethics and law for neurosciences clinicians: foundations and evolving challenges. NJ: Rutgers University Press; 2019.
Kaye DH. Proof in law and science. Jurimetrics. 1992;32:313.
Gardener JA. Legal argument: the structure and language of effective advocacy. Charlottesville, LexisNexis: The Michie Company; 1993.
Berch MA, Berch RW, Sprizer RS. Introduction to legal method and process. 2nd ed. St Paul: West Group; 1992.
Georg Nils Herlitz, The Meaning of the Term "Prima Facie", 55 La. L. Rev. (1994).
Federal Rules of Evidence. 2020 Edition. Online at: https://www.rulesofevidence.org/. Okay to.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Available online at: https://www.uscourts.gov/rules-policies/current-rules-practice-procedure/federal-rules-civil-procedure.
Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310 (1984).
Cornell Legal Information Institute. Precedent. Available online at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/precedent#:~:text=Precedent%20refers%20to%20a%20court,cases%20with%20the%20same%20facts.
Wu AW. Medical error: the second victim. The doctor who makes the mistake needs help too. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):726–7.
Baas MAM, Scheepstra KWF, Stramrood CAI, Evers R, Dijksman LM, van Pampus MG. Work-related adverse events leaving their mark: a cross-sectional study among Dutch gynecologists. BMC Psychiatry. 2018;18(1):73.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2021 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Szalados, J.E. (2021). Legal Reasoning: Why the Law and Its Application Are Confusing to Medical Providers. In: Szalados, J.E. (eds) The Medical-Legal Aspects of Acute Care Medicine. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68570-6_17
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-68570-6_17
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-68569-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-68570-6
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)