RESUMO
This Article examines the issues and questions which underlie the debate over the admission of "medical treatises" into evidence. The admissibility of this type of evidence is at issue most often in litigation involving complex medico-legal issues. This article outlines the evidentiary basis for admission of medical treatises and discusses the quality of medical treatises in an effort to determine what value to the fact-finder these treatises actually hold. The authors contend that there is an inherent untrustworthiness associated with medical treatises, but do not go so far as to suggest that medical treatises should never be admitted. The Article concludes that there is a need for greater caution in determining admissibility and recommends safeguards to better guarantee trustworthiness and reliability.
Assuntos
Prova Pericial , Jurisprudência , Editoração/normas , Feminino , Medicina Legal , Humanos , Masculino , Publicações Periódicas como Assunto/normas , Pesquisa/normas , Má Conduta Científica , Estados UnidosRESUMO
Time and money have been invested in the implementation and evaluation of the national Follow Through Project in the United States. Although the project has been successful in many respects and has generated a fairly extensive literature within psychology, education, and the other social sciences, relatively little theoretical attention has been directed toward sociocultural factors. The present article provides a critical retrospective analysis of the sociocultural assumptions, dynamics, and implications of Project Follow Through within a psychological framework.
