Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
There are undoubtedly many factors that contribute to inter-examiner variability relevant to the use of medical practitioners in justiciable matters. One source of variability with regard to claims relating to hearing disorders could well be the training and 'calibration' of medical examiners. A tentative analysis of the examination papers and of the declared roles of the specialties that provide these examiners lends support to such a thesis. One solution would be to train special specialists for medicolegal work, as envisaged by Boyarsky for forensic urology (Boyarsky, 1996). At the same time there is the need to change the role-perception of many examiners. There is also the need for medical examiners to express honest, unbiased opinions. There are also problems inherent in the litigation process which does not promote the interactive and adaptive processes between experts that characterise scientific discussions and enquiry.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s0022215100136321 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!