Department of Security and Crime Science, University College London, 35 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9EZ, UK; Centre for the Forensic Sciences, University College London, 35 Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9EZ, UK; Law Faculty, Uppsala University, Sweden, Munken 1, Trädgårdsgatan 20, 753 09 Uppsala, Sweden.
Department of Surgical Sciences, Uppsala University, Sweden.
Sci Justice. 2023 Sep;63(5):581-587. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2023.07.005. Epub 2023 Jul 17.
Medical opinions are often essential evidence in criminal cases but relatively little is known about the factors that impact forensic doctors' decision making. This research examines the role and impact of having an alternative hypothesis while forming a medical opinion. A scenario-based experiment with forensic doctors (n = 20) was conducted. In two out of three scenarios, the existence of alternative hypotheses impacted the actual opinions reached, the confidence in the judgments and the perceived consistency with the plaintiff hypothesis. Investigative and legal actors should be aware of the possibility of biases and importance of having alternative hypotheses when requesting and evaluating medical opinions.
医学意见在刑事案件中通常是至关重要的证据，但人们对影响法医决策的因素知之甚少。本研究考察了在形成医学意见时持有替代假设的作用和影响。对法医（n=20）进行了基于场景的实验。在三个场景中的两个中，替代假设的存在影响了实际得出的意见、对判断的信心以及与原告假设的感知一致性。调查和法律行为者在请求和评估医学意见时应该意识到存在偏见的可能性以及持有替代假设的重要性。
