National Association of Medical Examiners Position Paper: Medical Examiner, Coroner, and Forensic Pathologist Independence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective Forensic pathologists play a vital role in the justice system in matters concerning questions of death. Science as applied in the justice system should be objective and neutral. Since the goals of medical examiners and coroners are to determine the cause and manner of death for certification and public health functions (goals different and distinct from the missions of law enforcement agencies), it is important that medicolegal death investigation be independent. Accurate investigation, examination, reporting, and testimony by forensic pathologists are important to determine the cause and manner of death of individuals who die under sudden, unexpected, or violent circumstances. These cases can become the focus of political or legal pressure by individuals or offices seeking to influence the pathologist's findings. This pressure, even if seemingly unsuccessful in an individual case, can introduce error, bias, and corruption into the medicolegal investigation process. This paper reinforces the principle that medical examiners, coroners and forensic pathologists should be allowed to perform medicolegal investigations free of these influences. Participants The ad hoc Committee on Medical Examiner Independence of the National Association of Medical Examiners (NAME), a self-selected volunteer committee, developed this position paper. The findings are based on surveys of the NAME membership regarding members’ experience with, and reaction to, outside influence. Evidence Surveys of NAME members revealed that medical examiner independence was important to most members. Over 70% of survey respondents had been subjected to pressures to influence their findings, and many had suffered negative consequences for resisting those influences. In a separate study, over 30% of respondents indicated that fear of litigation affected their diagnostic decision-making. In 2009, the National Research Council of the National Academies published recommendations to strengthen the forensic sciences; they specifically recommended that medical examiner and coroner offices should be independent from law enforcement agencies and prosecutors’ offices. Consensus Process This position paper represents the consensus of the ad hoc Committee on Medical Examiner Independence, submitted to the Executive Committee and Board of Directors of NAME, and subject to comment and review by the membership. Conclusions It is the position of NAME that forensic pathologists working in or for medical examiner or coroner offices or as private consultants should be permitted to objectively pursue and report the facts and their opinions of those cases which they are investigating independent of political influences from other agencies within their respective jurisdictions and independent of the threat of litigation.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,055 | 0,095 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,007 | 0,002 |
| Communication savante | 0,006 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,003 | 0,005 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,017 | 0,008 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,015 | 0,009 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».