• E L Greenspan.
• Can Psychiatr Assoc J. 1978 Apr 1; 23 (3): 137-42.

AbstractIn this article, the author explores the relationship between the lawyer as advocate and the psychiatrist as expert. He argues that the role of the psychiatrist in aiding the Court in the determination of relevant issues is one of increasing importance. Often the diagnostic opinions offered by the psychiatrist border on conclusory legal determination. As such, those opinions must necessarily be subjected to the testing of adversarial processes. The role of the psychiatrist is to proffer a relevant opinion while nevertheless realizing that the inexact nature of the science limits the use such an opinion may have. The lawyer as adversary must subject that opinion to as rigorous an examination as possible. This examination is not an affront to the psychiatrist but rather an attempt to explore and expose the definitiveness of that opinion. It is through this combination of realized opinionating and adversarial examination that relevant legal-medical determinations can best be made within the confines of our existing judicial mode of dispute settlement.

6 keywords...

hide…