Cassiers L, Legein F
Service de Psychiatrie UCL. Bruxelles, Belgique.
Acta Psychiatr Belg. 1988 Jan-Feb;88(1):5-19.
The authors analyze the issue of the penal responsibility raised by the psychiatrists as expert witnesses. According to the A.P.A. Commission on this issue, they stress the incompatibility between the judicial and the psychiatric concepts. The issue does not belong to the psychiatric domain as such but resides within the boundaries of philosophy and ethics. The enduring ambiguity pervades more the psychiatrist than the legal profession. The authors agree with the A.P.A. Commission in maintaining the issue of responsibility, failing which there would be a serious ethical drawback. However, this should be the judge exclusive power. The psychiatrist is limited to staying within a therapeutic point of view, this includes a psychiatric diagnosis, the potential therapy, if any, and a prognosis as well. Owing to the sociological and criminological aspects, the expert report should be done by a multidisciplinary team. The authors wish an official attitude on these matters from the concerned professional associations in Belgium, up to their American colleagues.
作者们分析了精神科医生作为专家证人所引发的刑事责任问题。根据美国精神病学协会（A.P.A.）关于此问题的委员会的观点，他们强调了司法概念与精神病学概念之间的不相容性。该问题本身并不属于精神病学领域，而是存在于哲学和伦理学的范畴内。这种持久的模糊性对精神科医生的影响比对法律职业的影响更大。作者们赞同美国精神病学协会委员会保留责任问题，否则将会出现严重的伦理缺陷。然而，这应该是法官的专属权力。精神科医生仅限于保持治疗性的观点，这包括进行精神病学诊断、如有可能的潜在治疗以及预后评估。由于社会学和犯罪学方面的因素，专家报告应由多学科团队完成。作者们希望比利时相关专业协会乃至美国同行能在这些问题上采取官方态度。
