Miller R D
J Forensic Sci. 1984 Jul;29(3):825-30.
Much has been made in the literature of the importance of "objective" or "impartial" expert psychiatric testimony in forensic psychiatric cases; one result of this emphasis is a strong feeling that a treating physician cannot present unbiased testimony in court on issues such as competency to stand trial and especially criminal responsibility. Many states have explicit regulations designed to ensure that expert psychiatric witnesses who testify in criminal cases are not contaminated by past (or even the potential of future) treatment relationships with defendants. The author argues that such policies often prevent mentally ill defendants from receiving treatment from psychiatrists with the most experience in working with forensic psychiatric patients; and that the opportunity to treat as well as to evaluate such patients might well attract more treating psychiatrists to the forensic science field.
在法医学精神病学案例中，文献中大量论述了“客观”或“公正”的专家精神病学证词的重要性；这种强调的一个结果是，人们强烈认为，主治医生无法在法庭上就诸如受审能力，尤其是刑事责任等问题提供公正的证词。许多州都有明确的规定，以确保在刑事案件中作证的专家精神病学证人不会受到与被告过去（甚至未来潜在）治疗关系的影响。作者认为，此类政策往往会阻止精神病被告接受在处理法医学精神病患者方面经验最丰富的精神科医生的治疗；而且，治疗以及评估此类患者的机会很可能会吸引更多的主治精神科医生投身法医学领域。
