Citation

Wortzel HS. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 2024; 52(2): 149-152.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2024, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Publisher American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law)

DOI

10.29158/JAAPL.240023-24

PMID

38834366

Abstract

There is a clear need for experts with the requisite knowledge and experience to offer medicolegal opinions pertaining to various neuropsychiatric conditions. There is also an important distinction between clinical and medicolegal roles, and the need for training and expertise applicable to forensic assessment. But there remain few available experts with credentials spanning neuropsychiatry and forensic assessment. This creates a dilemma whereby parties involved in litigation featuring neuropsychiatric illness or injury are frequently forced to choose between experts with either knowledge and skills applicable to neuropsychiatric conditions or experts with skills and experience applicable to forensic assessment. Either choice introduces risk. Whether flawed medicolegal opinions are a consequence of deficient medical knowledge or an inadequate forensic evaluation process, the result remains the same, with triers of fact potentially being exposed to problematic testimony. There is, however, a more fundamental problem that implicates patient care more broadly: spurious dichotomies created by the historical segregation of psychiatry and neurology. Optimizing clinical care for patients with neuropsychiatric conditions, improving medical education in support of such care, and enabling forensic neuropsychiatric assessment must then start with more proactive efforts to reintegrate psychiatry and neurology.

Language: en

Keywords

Humans; Forensic Medicine; forensic psychiatry; Physician's Role; Forensic Psychiatry; neuropsychiatry; Neurology; *Expert Testimony/legislation & jurisprudence; *Neurologists/legislation & jurisprudence; behavioral neurology; forensic neurology; Mental Disorders/diagnosis