This story about a prosecution of a mother for poisoning her son with salt shows a key conflict between Medical Logic and Legal Logic.
The Doctor concerns believes honestly that the mother poisoned the child, but he has no evidence and was "unable to exclude the possibility that an accident was made".
We really need to be able to have criminal trials based upon evidence rather than opinion. Doctors may make educated guesses about diagnoses which on the balance of probabilities are right. However, just because a doctor thinks there is a 60% chance that someone is guilty does not mean that they are guilty. There are too many cases where people are prosecuted without proper evidence. A "medical opinion" is not evidence.
The Doctor concerns believes honestly that the mother poisoned the child, but he has no evidence and was "unable to exclude the possibility that an accident was made".
We really need to be able to have criminal trials based upon evidence rather than opinion. Doctors may make educated guesses about diagnoses which on the balance of probabilities are right. However, just because a doctor thinks there is a 60% chance that someone is guilty does not mean that they are guilty. There are too many cases where people are prosecuted without proper evidence. A "medical opinion" is not evidence.
Comments