東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Medicine at the Bar : = Medical Experts, Lawyers, and the Making of Malpractice in the Courtroom.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Medicine at the Bar :/
Reminder of title:	Medical Experts, Lawyers, and the Making of Malpractice in the Courtroom.
Author:	Garon-Sayegh, Patrick.
Description:	1 online resource (513 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-06, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-06B.
Subject:	Law. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29261040click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798357551184

Medicine at the Bar : = Medical Experts, Lawyers, and the Making of Malpractice in the Courtroom.
Garon-Sayegh, Patrick.

Medicine at the Bar :Medical Experts, Lawyers, and the Making of Malpractice in the Courtroom. - 1 online resource (513 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-06, Section: B.

Thesis (S.J.D.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2022.

Includes bibliographical references

This dissertation shows, via a detailed analysis of trial proceedings, how medical malpractice is made in the courtroom. To show this I build on insights from work in the fields of philosophy, history, and sociology of medicine and science. I draw these insights together into a general, rhetorical perspective on the evidentiary process that takes place at trial. This perspective is then deployed in a case study of a single trial. Throughout the dissertation I focus on knowledge of the medical standard of care: the norm against which the conduct of physician-defendants is compared to determine whether or not malpractice occurred. Knowledge of the standard is of a particular kind. In many cases, this knowledge cannot be separated from the argumentative work that takes place during the trial. Furthermore, knowledge of the past events themselves-i.e. physician-defendants' past actions in the situations in which they found themselves-cannot be separated from said argumentative work. The purview of this argumentative work is extensive, since it also includes authorizing certain people-medical expert witnesses-to opine regarding the events. The case study allows me to underscore the extent to which the trial is not only an argumentative practice, but also a highly disciplined and particularized inquiry into past events. Thus the standard of care is a product of the trial qua argumentative, disciplined, and particularized inquiry. This challenges prevailing conceptions of the standard of care in the doctrine and jurisprudence. Following these, the standard of care is akin to a fact that exists independently of the trial, and the trial is merely a means to make this fact accessible to the judge or jury with the least amount of distortion. I argue, contra these conceptions, that the trial has value in itself because it yields knowledge that cannot be gained any other way. In the case of the medical standard of care, it is knowledge made up of heterogeneous considerations-technical, scientific, moral, and legal-brought to bear on specific actions in specific situations.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798357551184Subjects--Topical Terms:

600858
Law.
Subjects--Index Terms:

EvidenceIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Medicine at the Bar : = Medical Experts, Lawyers, and the Making of Malpractice in the Courtroom.
LDR:03532nmm a2200421K 4500 001 2361961
005 20231027103152.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2022 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798357551184
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI29261040
035 $a AAI29261040
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Garon-Sayegh, Patrick. $3 3702657
245 1 0 $a Medicine at the Bar : $b Medical Experts, Lawyers, and the Making of Malpractice in the Courtroom.
264 0 $c 2022
300 $a 1 online resource (513 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-06, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Lemmens, Trudo.
502 $a Thesis (S.J.D.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2022.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a This dissertation shows, via a detailed analysis of trial proceedings, how medical malpractice is made in the courtroom. To show this I build on insights from work in the fields of philosophy, history, and sociology of medicine and science. I draw these insights together into a general, rhetorical perspective on the evidentiary process that takes place at trial. This perspective is then deployed in a case study of a single trial. Throughout the dissertation I focus on knowledge of the medical standard of care: the norm against which the conduct of physician-defendants is compared to determine whether or not malpractice occurred. Knowledge of the standard is of a particular kind. In many cases, this knowledge cannot be separated from the argumentative work that takes place during the trial. Furthermore, knowledge of the past events themselves-i.e. physician-defendants' past actions in the situations in which they found themselves-cannot be separated from said argumentative work. The purview of this argumentative work is extensive, since it also includes authorizing certain people-medical expert witnesses-to opine regarding the events. The case study allows me to underscore the extent to which the trial is not only an argumentative practice, but also a highly disciplined and particularized inquiry into past events. Thus the standard of care is a product of the trial qua argumentative, disciplined, and particularized inquiry. This challenges prevailing conceptions of the standard of care in the doctrine and jurisprudence. Following these, the standard of care is akin to a fact that exists independently of the trial, and the trial is merely a means to make this fact accessible to the judge or jury with the least amount of distortion. I argue, contra these conceptions, that the trial has value in itself because it yields knowledge that cannot be gained any other way. In the case of the medical standard of care, it is knowledge made up of heterogeneous considerations-technical, scientific, moral, and legal-brought to bear on specific actions in specific situations.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Law. $3 600858
650 4 $a Rhetoric. $3 516647
650 4 $a Medical ethics. $3 526828
650 4 $a Medical personnel. $2 itrt. $3 774747
653 $a Evidence
653 $a Expert witnesses
653 $a Medical malpractice
653 $a Science studies
653 $a Tort
653 $a Trial practice
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0398
690 $a 0681
690 $a 0497
690 $a 0207
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a University of Toronto (Canada). $b Law. $3 2093829
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-06B.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=29261040 $z click for full text (PQDT)