Re: Eminence vs. Evidence
From: R. Daniel Braun (rd.braun@gmail.com)
Tue Feb 19 09:05:03 2008
And as a result, we now have Bendectin available to us. NOT!!!!!
Dan
On Feb 19, 2008 10:47 AM, <DoctorJoe@aol.com> wrote:
>
> In a message dated 2/19/08 7:54:12 AM, evsono@pipeline.com writes:
>
> Or if ACOG and state medical societies had called out the so-called
> "Experts."
>
> Have faith in the System, Grasshopper. Have faith in the System!
>
> While the ACOG and the societies were sitting on their collective hands
> (or whatever they were doing with their hands), our COURTS have effectively
> come up with a solution.
>
> In the 1993 case, Daubert v. Merrill Dow (which was a suit over
> Bendectin(R), remember that?), the U.S. Supreme Court decided UNANIMOUSLY
> that the trial court, under the Federal Rules of Evidence (specifically Rule
> 702), had to evaluate "expert testimony" to determine it's scientific
> validity and also its relevance to the matter at hand.
>
> Rule 702 specifies that "if scientific, technical, or other specialized
> knwledge will assist the trier of fact [the court and/or the jury] to
> understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness [that's
> us] qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or
> education may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise."
>
> The Court opined that the "adjective 'scientific' implies a grounding in
> the methods and procedures of science. Similarly, the word 'knowledge'
> connotes more than a subjective belief or unsupported speculation."
>
> So the expert witness, under Daubert and the Federal Rules, has to provide
> for the court his bona fides, in terms of what he says he knows, what the
> scientific basis of the knowledge is, where it can be found, etc. (Enough
> information so the other party can 'cross examine' the evidence and make
> sure it's fairly reliable.)
>
> You CAN'T just sit up there and say "I'm Professor Lisse from out of town
> and I KNOW the answer because I've been flying these broomsticks for years!
> So what I say is the unimpeachable truth!" You have to provide the
> literature on the broomstick, the manual, and your own training and practice
> specifics, yada, yada, yada. There must be some reliable basis for your
> opinion and it has to be solid (not nebulous). Also, your
> training/experience has to be relevant to the case at hand -- you can't
> testify on flying broomstick cases if you've only been flying Cessnas.
>
> It's a whole new ballgame, boys and girls (at least since 1993). And the
> System did it -- not ACOG.
>
> May the System be with you!
>
> Joe P.
>
> FYI, here's Rule 702 in its entirety. It is augmented by the Rules of
> Civil Procedure and other Rules.
>
> RUle 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, sill, 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 reliabily to the
> facts of the case.
>
--
R. Daniel Braun, MD FACOG(L) ABMP CMTh
Professor Emeritus
Dept. of Obstetrics and Gynecology
Indiana U. School of Medicine
R. Daniel Braun
"Science without Religion is LAME; Religion without Science is BLIND"
Einstein 1941
