JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 32:4:390-394 (2004)
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Gutheil, T.
Right arrow Articles by Brodsky, A
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Gutheil, T.
Right arrow Articles by Brodsky, A
JOURNAL ARTICLE

"Just say no": experts' late withdrawal from cases to preserve independence and objectivity

TG Gutheil, H Bursztajn, JT Hilliard, and A Brodsky

An expert's decision to withdraw from a case at a late stage is an important and serious step with both forensic and ethical consequences. Preservation of a mutual right to terminate services at will is an essential (but all too often neglected) element of forensic work that can aid in immunizing the expert from threats to independence and objectivity. The authors examine the foundations of such a right, the potential obstacles to exercising it, the factors that might enter into such a decision, and the possible consequences of late withdrawal.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J Am Acad Psychiatry LawHome page
C. D. Wills
The CHESS Method of Forensic Opinion Formulation: Striving to Checkmate Bias
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law, December 1, 2008; 36(4): 535 - 540.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2004 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.