Fletcher J C
University of Virginia School of Medicine, Charlottesville, USA.
J Med Philos. 1997 Aug;22(4):297-324. doi: 10.1093/jmp/22.4.297.
This article reflects on the author's modest experience as an expert witness in two trials: Osheroff vs. Greenspan (1983), and In the Matter of Baby K (1994). Bioethicists' expertise as scholar-teachers and consultants on particular issues merits qualification by judges as expert witnesses. The article argues that a different kind of expertise-strong moral advocacy-is required to be an effective expert witness. The major lessons of expert witnessing for the author concern the demands and strains on the bioethicist's role as scholar, teacher, and consultant. The Baby K case is analyzed in some detail, due to its importance for bioethics, ethics consultation, and the testimony of bioethicists on either side of the case. Rules of thumb are offered to guide decisions as to choices regarding expert witnessing, as well as a discussion of the interaction of law and bioethics.
奥谢罗夫诉格林斯潘案(1983年)和关于“宝贝K”案(1994年)。生物伦理学家作为特定问题的学者-教师和顾问所具备的专业知识,理应得到法官认可成为专家证人。本文认为,成为一名有效的专家证人需要一种不同类型的专业知识——强烈的道德倡导。作者从专家证人经历中获得的主要经验教训涉及生物伦理学家作为学者、教师和顾问角色所面临的要求和压力。鉴于“宝贝K”案对生物伦理学、伦理咨询以及案件双方生物伦理学家的证词具有重要意义,本文对该案件进行了较为详细的分析。文中提供了一些经验法则,以指导关于专家证人选择的决策,同时还讨论了法律与生物伦理学的相互作用。