[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>
> The determination in Philadelphia court that I did not have expert knowledge
> of medicine or medical informatics ...
>
So, what is the Philadelphia court criteria for having expert knowledge
of medicine or medical informatics?
I am interested in this topic because I am not convinced that there
really is a field of medical informatics despite the many programs with
that title. As a reminder, there was for some time dispute in academic
circles that computer science really existed as a science as exemplified
by physics and biology. For example, at University of Michigan, computer
related study has moved into the various professional schools:
Engineering, Business, and Information (formally Library )!
And, any dispute among academics can be leveraged into legal (and
political) uncertainty. The recent US tobacco court cases were largely
not won on scientific arguments but on consequential behavior such as
putting additives in. Global warming is now under going a similar fate
in the U.S.
I have talked to trial lawyers about medical breach of confidentiality
from a technical standpoint, and they are flat out not interested in
such arguments. They like things like; does the nursing staff leave a
key unlocked in a desk drawer that other people have access to? I
suspect this is largely because expert witness testimony is extremely
difficult to do without challenge, but such facts as unsecured keys are
easy to establish without challenge (despite being unlikely in a long
chain of events).
