Proposed changes to the hospital-medical staff relationship to improve quality of care

Medical staff attorney Snelson answers the Colloquium's charge, "What exactly has to change in the hospital-medical staff relationship for health care quality to be improved?" Her response emphasizes the logic of having clinicians vested with authority to establish policies concerning the clinical decision-making. The article discusses the cases defining the medical staff bylaws as contractual in nature, and the problem of hospital attorneys demanding unilateral amendments to bylaws. Bylaw clauses that would chill medical opinion and communication or denigrate clinical recommendations are discussed. Ms. Snelson advocates for the inclusion of the medical staff organization in exclusive contract and other clinical decision-making, and includes sample bylaw language enacting her recommendations.     

Context effects in forensic science: a review and application of the science of science to crime laboratory practice in the United States.

This article discusses the phenomenon of "context effects" by reviewing the findings and practices of a range of scientific fields, including astronomy, physics, biology, medicine, and especially the relevant research and theory from psychology. Context information, such as expectations about what one is supposed to see or conclude, has been found to have a small but relentless impact on human perception, judgment, and decision-making. The article then considers the vulnerability of forensic science practice to context effects, and concludes by suggesting that forensic science adopt practices familiar in other fields of scientific work, in particular blind or double-blind testing and also the use of evidence line-ups.     

Lineup Administrators' Expectations: Their Impact on Eyewitness Confidence

This research focuses on how lineup a administrators influence eyewitnesses' postidentification confidence. What happens to witness confidence when a witness makes an identification that confirms the lineup administrator's expectations; what happens when this expectation is not confirmed? In Experiment 1, participant interviewers (n = 52) administered target-absent photo lineups to participant witnesses (n = 52). The interviewers did not view the simulated crime, but were told the thief's position in the lineup. In every instance this information was false (we used a target-absent lineup). A one-way ANOVA revealed that eyewitness identification confidence was malleable as a function of interviewers' beliefs about the thief's identity. In Experiment 2, participant jurors (n = 80) viewed 40 testimonies of Experiment 1 witnesses (2 participants viewed each testimony). Participant jurors judged all participant witnesses as equally credible despite their varying levels of postidentification confidence.

     

The psychological impact of stalking on female undergraduates.

This study examined the psychological impact of stalking upon female undergraduates, a population previously determined to experience a surprising stalking prevalence rate. Despite common understanding that stalking has deleterious effects, there have been no previous efforts to systematically assess them with standardized measures. Thirty-six female stalking victims were compared with 43 females who had been harassed and 48 controls. Psychological impact was assessed with the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Scale, the Symptom Checklist-90-R, and the Self-Report Interpersonal Trust Scale. Stalked subjects endorsed significantly more PTSD symptoms and with greater severity than the harassed or control subjects. Stalked subjects also had significantly higher scores on several subscales of the SCL-90, and had significantly higher positive symptom totals and distress indices.     

When is the Truth not the Truth? Truth Telling and Libel by Implication

Implied libel cases involve defamatory news stories composed entirely of factual, truthful material. Because they lack the false statements typically required for a successful libel suit, these cases present unique challenges regarding determination of falsity. This article examines how appellate judges articulate and apply conceptions of truth in libel- by-implication cases. It concludes that there exists no common understanding of truth and that judges and courts that favor the correspondence theory of truth tend to favor the media, while those that adopt the coherence theory of truth do not. This disagreement over the fundamental understanding of what constitutes truth leads to confusion and lack of clarity for journalists and judges. The article concludes that the actual malice standard apply in all implied libel cases.