Minnigerode B
Laryngol Rhinol Otol (Stuttg). 1975 Jul;54(7):538-41.
The application of different ways of thinking - that is to say the juridical, human scientific evaluating and the medical, natural scientific establishing - next to each other can direct to difficultics and divergencies in the reply of expert questions in medical liability proceedings, although each way of thinking attains to correct and practicable results. Relative to the medical expert this presums on the one hand a distinct degree of juridical mentality and necessitates on the other hand a medical mind and scrutiny of the factual situation coordinated to the juridical train of thoughts and terms. A particular importance is due herein to the knowledge of the principles and directions of the burden of proof within the rules of criminal and civil procedure. Starting from the legal handling the forms observing are explained in detail and illustrated by means of competent laws and court findings. Therewith an estimation of the medical state of affairs should be rendered possible for the medical expert adequate coordinated to the juridical terms.
不同思维方式的应用——也就是说法律思维、人文科学评估思维以及医学、自然科学实证思维——并行使用时，可能会在医疗责任诉讼中的专家问题答复上导致困难和分歧，尽管每种思维方式都能得出正确且可行的结果。对于医学专家而言，这一方面假定了一定程度的法律思维，另一方面需要具备医学思维，并根据法律思路和术语对实际情况进行审视。在此，刑事和民事诉讼规则中的举证责任原则和方向的知识具有特别重要的意义。从法律处理方式出发，详细解释并通过相关法律和法院判决进行说明所遵循的形式。由此，应能使医学专家对医疗状况进行与法律术语充分协调的评估。
