FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 338:1233-1235 April 23, 1998 Number 17 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited

To the Editor: Phibbs (Nov. 13 issue)¹ recommends the development of national panels of acknowledged experts, presumably to replace paid expert witnesses in cases of medical malpractice. If as he alleges, some physicians engage in "scientific perjury" in exchange for a fee, such abuses should not be tolerated. However, in many instances, there are honest differences of opinion. Each side is then afforded the opportunity to present evidence, including expert testimony, as part of the adversarial advocacy process, and a judge or a jury then decides the case. In some states, such as Maryland, malpractice claims can often be resolved . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.