心理学家的专家诊断证据:纪律紧张和可采性问题。

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW
Journal of Law and Medicine Pub Date : 2023-05-01
Ian Freckelton
{"title":"心理学家的专家诊断证据:纪律紧张和可采性问题。","authors":"Ian Freckelton","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Controversy has existed since the 1960s on the difficult issue of the subject matter upon which psychologists should be permitted to offer expert opinions to the courts. A particularly problematic aspect of the controversy has been evidence by psychologists about diagnoses which generally is given by reference to the two main taxonomies of diagnosis, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. This column reviews the leading decisions on the issue in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, including a 2021 Queensland Court of Appeal decision. It argues that the trend of recent case law is in favour of psychologists being permitted to give such evidence but only, on a case-by-case basis, when sufficient specialised knowledge is established in relation to the specific diagnosis proposed by a psychologist.</p>","PeriodicalId":45522,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Medicine","volume":"30 1","pages":"58-69"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Expert Diagnostic Evidence By Psychologists: Disciplinary Tensions and Admissibility Issues.\",\"authors\":\"Ian Freckelton\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Controversy has existed since the 1960s on the difficult issue of the subject matter upon which psychologists should be permitted to offer expert opinions to the courts. A particularly problematic aspect of the controversy has been evidence by psychologists about diagnoses which generally is given by reference to the two main taxonomies of diagnosis, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. This column reviews the leading decisions on the issue in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, including a 2021 Queensland Court of Appeal decision. It argues that the trend of recent case law is in favour of psychologists being permitted to give such evidence but only, on a case-by-case basis, when sufficient specialised knowledge is established in relation to the specific diagnosis proposed by a psychologist.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45522,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"58-69\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

自20世纪60年代以来,关于心理学家是否应该被允许向法院提供专家意见这一难题一直存在争议。争论中一个特别有问题的方面是心理学家关于诊断的证据,这些证据通常参考两种主要的诊断分类,即美国精神病学协会的《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》和世界卫生组织的《国际疾病分类》。本专栏回顾了美国、英国和澳大利亚在这一问题上的主要裁决,包括2021年昆士兰上诉法院的一项裁决。它认为,最近判例法的趋势是允许心理学家提供这种证据,但只有在心理学家提出的具体诊断建立了足够的专业知识的情况下,才能在个案基础上提供这种证据。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Expert Diagnostic Evidence By Psychologists: Disciplinary Tensions and Admissibility Issues.

Controversy has existed since the 1960s on the difficult issue of the subject matter upon which psychologists should be permitted to offer expert opinions to the courts. A particularly problematic aspect of the controversy has been evidence by psychologists about diagnoses which generally is given by reference to the two main taxonomies of diagnosis, the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and the World Health Organization's International Classification of Diseases. This column reviews the leading decisions on the issue in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia, including a 2021 Queensland Court of Appeal decision. It argues that the trend of recent case law is in favour of psychologists being permitted to give such evidence but only, on a case-by-case basis, when sufficient specialised knowledge is established in relation to the specific diagnosis proposed by a psychologist.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
63
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信