Clinical practice guidelines in courts' representation of medical evidence and testimony
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4597200 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Jaakko Taipale (0000-0003-1590-2499, University of Helsinki, corresponding author), Lotta Hautamäki (0000-0002-8344-1439, Tampere University) |
| Year | 2021 |
| Volume | 275 |
| Pages | 113805 |
| Publication date | 2021-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Social Science & Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0277-9536 • E-ISSN: 1873-5347 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113805 |
| PMID | 33721744 |
| OpenAlex | W3133874116 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 3 |
| References cited | 34 |
This article examines clinical practice guidelines (CPG) in the courtroom. The guidelines in question are Finnish national current care guidelines for brain injuries, and the case context is traffic insurance compensation cases contested in the Helsinki district court. We analyse 11 case verdicts qualitatively, drawing from earlier sociological and theoretical accounts of clinical practice guidelines and evidence-based medicine. What makes the case-type relevant for studying clinical practice guidelines is the fact that the cases, which feature a medical dispute concerning traumatic brain injury, involve highly specialized expertise and contradictory expert claims, but the cases are decided in a generalist court by non-expert judges. What we show in the article is how the guidelines structure, sequence and initiate temporal reworking in the judges' representation of medical evidence and testimony, and how the plaintiffs' delayed diagnoses complicate the application of the CPG in the evaluation. We further discuss the guidelines' epistemic authority in the verdicts and finish by comparing the 2008 and 2017 editions of Finnish CPGs for brain injuries, suggesting a multifaceted, courtroom-mediated feedback loop between the patient-plaintiffs and the clinical practice guidelines
Clinical Practice · Family medicine · Medical practice · MEDLINE · Political science · Politics · Representation (politics · Clinical practice guidelines implementation · Ethics in Clinical Research · Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life · Law · Medicine
Kinds of People: Moving Targets
Scientific literacy and the jury
Uncertainty work and temporality in psychiatry
Predefined criteria and interpretative flexibility in legal courts’ evaluation of expertise
Uncertainty and the Development of Evidence-Based Guidelines
Professionalism, Indeterminacy and the EBM Project
Evidence based public health
Evidence‐Based Medicine or Cookbook Medicine? Addressing Concerns over the Standardization of Care
Credibility battles in the autism litigation
Being ‘evidence-based’ in the absence of evidence
What’s Behind a Guideline
Litigation Life
Judges’ socio-technical review of contested expertise
Stages in the Empirical Programme of Relativism
Law’s Knowledge
Judicial Representations of Scientific Evidence
What is Qualitative in Qualitative Research
Understanding and misunderstanding randomized controlled trials
Regulatory objectivity and the generation and management of evidence in medicine
Pragmatic evidence and textual arrangements
Do guidelines create uniformity in medical practice
Diversity in clinical guidelines
Accounting for EBM
Objective Brains, Prejudicial Images
A World of Standards but not a Standard World
| Unique citing works | 3 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,75 |
| Citation span | 2022 - 2026 (5) |
| Citation velocity | current |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 2 |