Cuer, P., “Initiation to Bioethics,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): At 25, 27.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1074.Google Scholar

Wolf, S. M., “Quality Assessment of Ethics in Health Care: The Accountability Revolution?” American Journal of Law & Medicine 20 (1994): 105–128, at 115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

355 A.2d 647 (N.J.), cert.denied sub nom. Garger v. New Jersey, 429 U.S. 922 (1976); Spielman, B., “Has Faith in Health Care Ethics Consultants Gone Too Far? Risks of an Unregulated Practice and a Model Act to Contain Them,” Marquette Law Review 85 (2001): 161–219, at 162–63.Google Scholar

Mishkin, D. B., “Proffering Bioethicists as Experts,” The Judges’ Journal (Summer 1997): 50–89.Google Scholar

Wolf, S. M., “Quality Assessment of Ethics in Health Care: The Accountability Revolution,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 20 (1994): 105–128, at 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dyck, A. J., “Ethics and Medicine,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W., eds., Ethics and Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns (Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press, 1977): 114–141 at 114.Google Scholar

Fletcher, J. C., “The Bioethics Movement and Hospital Ethics Committees,” Maryland Law Review 50 (1991): 859–888, at 863.Google Scholar

Id. (“The scholarly literature in bioethics is enormous and still growing rapidly”); Hiller, M. D., “Medical Ethics and Public Policy,” in Hiller, M., ed., Medical Ethics and the Law: Implications for Public Policy (1981): 3–45, at 4 (a “plethora of materials”); Kipnis, K., “Confessions of an Expert Ethics Witness,” in Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 325–343, at 331, 339 (a “substantial” body of writing on the subject).Google Scholar

Fletcher, J. C., “The Bioethics Movement and Hospital Ethics Committees,” Maryland Law Review 50 (1991): 859–888, at 860, 867.Google Scholar

“Preface,” in Humber, J. and Almeder, R., eds. 2d ed., Biomedical Ethics and the Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1979): at ix.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fletcher, J. C., “The Bioethics Movement and Hospital Ethics Committees,” Maryland Law Review 50 (1991): 859–888, at 868.Google Scholar

Id. at 869–70; Hoffman, D. Tarzian, A. and O'Neil, J. A., “Are Ethics Committees Members Competent to Consult?” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 30–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Cuer, P., “Initiation to Bioethics,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): 23–37, at 25, 27 (the Hastings Centre in 1969 and the Kennedy Institute of Ethics in 1971). Shannon, T. J., “Preface,” in Shannon, T., ed., Bioethics: Basic Writings on the Key Ethical Questions that Surround the Major, Modern Biological Possibilities (New York, N.Y.: Paulist Press, 1976): 1; Fletcher, J. C., “The Bioethics Movement and Hospital Ethics Committees,” Maryland Law Review 50 (1991): 859–888, 859, 869 (the Hastings Centre, the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, and the Park Ridge Center). In addition, the Center for the Study of Bioethics is located at 8701 Watertown Plan Road, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53226, <centerbioethics@mcw.edu>Google Scholar

Amer. Soc'y for Bioethics and Humanities, Core Competencies for Health Care Ethics Consultation (Glenview, IL: American Society for Bioethics and Humanities, 1998); Spielman, B., “Has Faith in Health Care Consultants Gone Too Far? Risks of an Unregulated Practice and a Model Act to Contain Them,” Marquette Law Review 85 (2001): 161–221; Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1062, 1065 n. 97.Google Scholar

Brock, D. W., “Truth or Consequences: The Role of Philosophers in Policy-Making” Ethics 97 (1987): 186–191, at 786; Childress, J. F., “The National Bioethics Advisory Commission: Bridging the Gaps in Human Subjects Research Protection,” Journal of Health Care Law & Policy 1 (1998): 105–122; Reynolds, T., “When Research and Politics Collide, Advice Sought from Ethics Panels,” Journal of the National Cancer Institute 93 (2001): 1834–1836 (discussing the Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee created in 1988, the Council on Bioethics established in 2001, the National Bioethics Advisory Commission which expired in 2001, the National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects in Biomedical and Behavioral Research established by the 1974 National Research Act, and the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research created in 1978); Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1046 n. 2 (the National Bioethics Advisory Commission); Weisbard, A. J., “The Role of Philosophers in the Public Policy Process: A View from the President's Commission,” Ethics 97 (1987): 776–785, at 776; Wolf, S. M., “Quality Assessment of Ethics in Health Care: The Accountability Revolution,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 20 (1994): 105–128, at 108 n. 13 (“The National Commission for the Protection of Human Subjects ran 1974–78; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare's Ethics Advisory Board 1978–80; and the President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research 1978–83. The Congressional Biomedical Ethics Advisory Committee technically ran 1985–89, but in reality died in partisan squabbling and never functioned”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See authorities collected in note 17, supra.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075.Google Scholar

Faigman, D. L. Kaye, D. H. Saks, M. J. and Sanders, J., Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (St. Paul, MN.: West, 1997): section 1–1.0; Giannelli, P. C. and Imwinkelried, E. J., Scientific Evidence, 3d ed. (Charlottesville, VA.: Lexis Law Pub., 1999): section 1–1; Gross, S. R., “Expert Evidence,” Wisconsin Law Review (1991): 1113–1184, 1113, 1118–20.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1048.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar

Fed. R. Evid. 702, 28 U.S.C.A. (“If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify therefore in the form of an opinion or otherwise….”).Google Scholar

526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar

Imwinkelried, E. J., “The Next Step after Daubert: Developing a Similarly Epistemological Approach to Ensuring the Reliability of Nonscientific Expert Testimony,” Cardozo Law Review 15 (1994): 2271–2294, 2280–81; Strong, J. W., “Language and Logic in Expert Testimony: Limiting Expert Testimony by Restrictions of Function, Reliability, and Form,” Oregon Law Review 71 (1992): 349–379, 361–62, 366, 368.Google Scholar

Faigman, D. L. Kaye, D. H. Saks, M. J. and Sanders, J., Modern Scientific Evidence: The Law and Science of Expert Testimony (St. Paul, MN.: West, 1997): sections 1–2.0; Giannelli, P. C. and Imwinkelried, E. J., Scientific Evidence, 3d ed. (Charlottesville, VA.: Lexis Law Pub., 1999): sections 1–5.Google Scholar

293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923).Google Scholar

Strong, J. W., “Language and Law in Expert Testimony: Limiting Expert Testimony by Restrictions on Function, Reliability, and Form,” Oregon Law Review 71 (1992): 349–379, 349, 361. See also Imwinkelried, E. J., “Attempts to Limit the Scope of the Frye Standard for the Admission of Scientific Evidence: Confronting the Real Cost of the General Acceptance Test,” Behavioral Sciences and the Law 10 (1992): 444–446.Google Scholar

See generally Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564, 547; Scofield, G. R., “Two Courts Rule Against Admissibility of Testimony,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 29 (2001): 5; Scofield, G., “The Wizard of Oughts,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 232–235; Scofield, G. R., “Is the Medical Ethicist an ‘Expert?’” Bioethics Bulletin 3 (1994): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 903.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): 69–95; Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984; Davis, K. C., “An Approach to the Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 404–07. See also Adv. Comm. Note, Fed. R. Evid. 201(a), 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 875, citing Nowell-Smith, P., Ethics (London, Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1954) and Nielson, , “Problems of Ethics,” in Edwards, P., ed., Encyclopedia of Philosophy 3 (New York: Macmillan, 1967): 117–121, at 117–21.Google Scholar

Agich, G. J. and Spielman, B. J., “Ethics Expert Testimony: Against the Skeptics,” Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 381–403, at 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 875.Google Scholar

United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396,399 (1930)(Holmes, J.); Louisville Gas & Electric Co. v. Coleman, 277 U.S. 32, 41 (1928)(Holmes, J., dissenting); Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 241 (1926)(Holmes, J., dissenting); LeRoy Fibre Co. v. Chicago, Milwaukee & St. Paul Ry., 232 U.S. 340, 354 (1914)(Holmes, J., concurring)(“I do not think we need trouble ourselves with the thought that my view depends upon differences of degree. The whole law does so as soon as it is civilized…. Negligence is all degree….”); Haddock v. Haddock, 201 U.S. 562, 631 (1906)(Holmes, J., dissenting)(“I have heard it suggested that the difference is one of degree. I am the last man in the world to quarrel with a distinction simply because it is one of degree. Most distinctions, in my opinion, are of that sort, and are none the worse for it”); Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5, at 736.Google Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1056.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 877 n. 18 (an “observation that Hindus think it immoral to eat meat would represent an exercise in descriptive ethics”).Google Scholar

Id. (it would be descriptive testimony for a moralist to detail “the mores of a particular community”).Google Scholar

See Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 593 (1993) (“capable of empirical test,” “falsifiability, or refutability, or testability”).Google Scholar

See generally Goldstein, M. and Goldstein, I. F., How We Know: An Exploration of the Scientific Process (New York: Plenum Press, 1978): Ch. 1.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 892. Professor Rich tells the author that he, Professor Rich, does not know of a single experienced bioethical witness who views himself or herself primarily as a metaethicist.Google Scholar

In Professor Rich's words, metaethics is the “fuzziest” of the three types of bioethical expertise.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 892–93.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1056.Google Scholar

Humber, J. M. and Almeder, R. F., “Introduction to Ethical Theory,” in Humber, J. and Almeder, R., eds., 2d ed., Biomedical Ethics and the Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1979): 1–11, at 9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, G. P. II, Bioethics and the Law: Medical, Socio-Legal and Philosophical Directions for a Brave New World (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993): 2–3, at 3.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 893.Google Scholar

Id. at 881.Google Scholar

Id. at 880, 892–93; Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977): 3.Google Scholar

Agich, G. J. and Spielman, B. J., “Ethics Expert Testimony: Against the Skeptics,” Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 381–403, at 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharpe, V. A. and Pellegrino, E. D., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: A Reappraisal,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 373–379, at 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 292. During the conference at Seton Hall, the author asked Professor Kipnis the following question: If the province of the metaethicist is to (1) explain the accepted meaning of terms in bioethics, (2) trace the logic of bioethical arguments, and (3) expose logical fallacies in the arguments, could (1) and (2) be reallocated to descriptive ethics, and could (3) be reassigned to normative ethics? His answer was in the affirmative. If those functions were reconceived in those terms, the classification scheme could be simplified and reduced to the two categories of descriptive and normative claims.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 881. Prescriptive and prescriptive propositions do not exhaust the possibilities. A normative proposition could also be permissive, stating that a certain type of conduct is neither forbidden nor mandatory but allowed.Google Scholar

Id. at 882.Google Scholar

Foody v. Manchester Memorial Hosp., 40 Conn.Supp. 127, 482 A.2d 713 (1984); In the matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1991); Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 497 N.E.2d 626 (1986).Google Scholar

Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Verniero, 22 F.Supp.2d 331 (D.N.J. 1998), aff’d sub nom. Planned Parenthood v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3d Cir. 2000); Carhart v. Steinberg, 11 F.Supp.2d 1099 (D.Neb. 1998), aff’d, 192 F.3d 1142 (8th Cir. 1999), cert.granted in part, 528 U.S. 1110 (2000); Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 744 F.Supp. 1323 (E.D.Pa. 1990), aff’d in part, rev’d in part, 947 F.2d 682 (3d Cir. 1991), cert.granted in part, 502 U.S. 1056 (1992).Google Scholar

Curran v. Bosze, 141 Ill.2d 473,566 N.E.2d 1319,153 Ill. Dec. 213 (1990).Google Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 291, 293, 295 (“value questions, including deeply moral ones, sometimes cannot be avoided in law;” “moral values can not be excluded from legal decisions at least some of the time”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fed. R. Evid. 702, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (1997).Google Scholar

Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999).Google Scholar

Fed. R. Evid. 702, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997). See also In re; Diet Drugs, 2001 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 1174, *6 (E.D.Pa., February 1, 2001) (“mere personal belief”); Mishkin, D. B., “Proffering Bioethicists as Experts,” The Judges’ Journal (1997): 89.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 891.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1054–55.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564, at 563; Scofield, G., “The Wizard of Oughts,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 232–235, at 233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mishkin, D. B., “Proffering Bioethicists as Experts,” The Judges’ Journal (Summer 1997): 50–89, at 89; Scofield, G. R., “Is the Medical Ethicist an ‘Expert?’” Bioethics Bulletin 3 (1994): 1–28; Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1062.Google Scholar

Id. at 1051, 1061, 1071–72 (“then-prevailing ethical practices,” “in practice,” “current medical ethics standards,” “existing standards of care”).Google Scholar

Foody v. Manchester Mem. Hosp., 40 Conn.Supp. 127, 137, 482 A.2d 713, 720 (1984)(“Prevailing medical ethical practice”); Brophy v. New England Sinai Hospital, Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 458, 497 N.E.2d 626, 639 (1986)(“prevailing medical ethics”); Commissioner of Correction v. Myers, 379 Mass. 255, 265, 399 N.E.2d 452, 458 (1979); Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 373 Mass. 728, 738, 743–44, 370 N.E.2d 417, 424, 426 (1977)(“the current medical ethos in this area,” “Prevailing medical ethical practice,” “existing medical mores”); Chapman, C. B., Physicians, Law, and Ethics (New York: New York University Press, 1984): 96.Google Scholar

Wetherill v. University of Chicago, 565 F.Supp. 1553, 1564 (N.D. Ill. 1983); Herridge v. Bd. of Reg. in Med., 420 Mass. 154, 165, 648 N.E.2d 745, 751 (1995).Google Scholar

Zenith Laboratories, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., 1992 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 11540, 24 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1652 (D.N.J., July 21, 1992).Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 879 (“objective, factual”).Google Scholar

Hunt, R. and Arras, J., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto Calif.: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): 1–48, at 1, 10.Google Scholar

Van Den Berg, J. H., Medical Power and Medical Ethics (New York: Norton, 1978): at 7.Google Scholar

E.g., Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J. F., 5th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 2001); Spielman, B., “Bioethics and the Law: Bridging the Divide,” Journal of Legal Medicine 23 (2002): 151–158. See also Conservatorship of Morrison v. Abramovice, 206 Cal.App.3d 304, 309, 253 California Report 530 (1988): 305–314, 530, 533 (“a text on medical ethics”).Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1065 n. 97.Google Scholar

Chapman, C. B., Physicians, Law, and Ethics (New York: New York University Press, 1984): at xiv, 104.Google Scholar

Available online at <http://www.aaos.org/wordhtml/papers/ethics/code.htm> (last visited March 16, 2005).+(last+visited+March+16,+2005).>Google Scholar

Brody, B. Rothstein, M. McCullough, L. and Bobinski, M. A., Medical Ethics: Analysis of the Issues Raised by the Codes, Opinions, and Statements (Washington, D.C.: Bureau of National Affairs, 1999) (ethical pronouncements and codes from 26 medical specialty organizations).Google Scholar

Conservatorship of Morrison v. Abramovice, 206 Cal.App.3d 304, 310, 253 California Reporter (1988): 531–535, at 534; Lazzarini, Z., “Legal and Ethical Issues of Physician Prescription and Pharmacy Sale of Syringes to Patients Who Inject Illegal Drugs,” Health Matrix: 11 (2001): 85–128, at 105,108; Wolf, S. M., “Quality Assessment of Ethics of Health Care: The Accountability Revolution,” American Journal of Law & Medicine 20 (1994): 105–128, at 105 n. 2.Google Scholar

United States v. Morvant, 898 F.Supp. 1157, 1164(E.D.La. 1995).Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1071.Google Scholar

Foody v. Manchester Mem. Hosp., 40 Conn.Supp. 127, 135–36, 482 A.2d 713, 719 (1984).Google Scholar

Conservatorship of Morrison v. Abramovice, 206 Cal.App.3d 304, 309, 253 Cal. Rptr. 530, 533 (1988); Neade v. Portes, 193 Ill.2d 433, 447, 739 N.E.2d 496, 504, 250 Ill. Dec. 733 (2000); Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564, at 547, 552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id. at 561; In the Matter of Lawrance, 579 N.E.2d 32, 42 (Ind. 1991).Google Scholar

Fluss, S. S., “An International Overview of Developments in Certain Areas, 1984–94,” in Mazzoni, C., ed., A Legal Framework for Bioethics (The Hague: Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1998): 11–37, 28 (a table listing international instruments).Google Scholar

Massue, J. P., “Preface,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): 11–17, at 12 (the Nuremberg Code of 1947); Dyck, A. J., “Ethics and Medicine,” Linacre Quarterly (August 1973): 182–200.Google Scholar

Rivero, A. P. and Galan, T. A., “An International View of Patients’ Rights,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): 101–109, at 105.Google Scholar

Salguero, R. G., “Medical Ethics and Competency to be Executed,” Yale Law Journal 96 (1986): 167–186, at 167, 174; Marotta, G., “The Enlightenment and Bioethics,” in Bandman, E. and Bandman, B., eds., Bioethics and Human Rights: A Reader for Health Professionals (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978): 62–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Massue, J. P., “Preface,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): At 12.Google Scholar

Id. (the Hawaii Declaration).Google Scholar

Cuer, P., “Initation to Bioethics,” in id. at 25. See generally Smith, G. P. II, Human Rights and Biomedicine (Boston: Kluwer Law International, 2000): 1–229, at 1–13.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 869, 871–72.Google Scholar

Agich, G. F. and Spielman, B. J., “Ethics Expert Testimony: Against the Skeptics,” Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 381–403, at 387.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharpe, V. A. and Pellegrino, E. D., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: A Reappraisal,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 373–379, at 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Smith, G. P. II, Bioethics and the Law: Medical, Socio-Legal and Philosophical Directions for A Brave New World (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993): at 3; Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 292 (“clarifying concepts”).Google Scholar

Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1977): at 3 (“separate”); Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 880 (“sort out”).Google Scholar

Id. at 893.Google Scholar

Humber, J. M. and Almeder, R. F., “Introduction to Ethical Theory,” in Humber, J. and Almeder, R., eds. 2d ed., Biomedical Ethics and the Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1979): 1–11. at 11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

29 Conn.Supp. 368, 289 A.2d 386 (Super, Ct. 1972).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 883–84, 892–93.Google Scholar

Dobbs, D. B., The Law of Torts (St. Paul, Minn: West Group, 2000): section 242, at 633.Google Scholar

Id. at 163–65.Google Scholar

Id. at section 242, at 633.Google Scholar

Peters, P. G., “The Quiet Demise of Deference to Custom: Malpractice Law at the Millennium,” Washington & Lee Law Review 57 (2000): 163–205.Google Scholar

Dobbs, D. B., The Law of Torts (St. Paul, Minn: West Group, 2000): 163–65.Google Scholar

Twining, W., Rethinking Evidence: Exploratory Essays (Oxford: Blackwell, 1990): Ch. 3 (the Rationalist Tradition).Google Scholar

See generally Kreyche, R. J., Rev. ed., Logic for Undergraduates (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1961); Copi, I. M. and Cohen, C., 9th ed., Introduction to Logic (New York: Macmillan Pub.; Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Canada; New York: Maxwell Macmillan International, 1994)(discussing the use of rules of inference and truth tables to determine the validity of lines of argument).Google Scholar

Compare Agich, G. F. and Spielman, B. J., “Ethics Expert Testimony: Against the Skeptics,” Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 381–403, with Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564, at 562–63 (“We believe that professional ethicists can assist the courts but that their testimony should be limited to descriptive and analytical ethics”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharpe, V. A. and Pellegrino, E. D., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: A Reappraisal,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 373–379, at 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Martin, P. A., “Bioethics and the Whole: Pluralism, Consensus, and the Transmutation of Bioethical Methods into Gold,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 27 (1999): 316–325, at 316, 317; Wildes, K. W., “Particularism in Bioethics: Balancing Secular and Religious Concerns,” Maryland Law Review 53 (1994): 1220–1237, at 1220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1977): 6; Scofield, G. R., “Is the Medical Ethicist an ‘Expert?’” Bioethics Bulletin 3 (Winter 1994): 1–28, at 1–2, 9–10, 28.Google Scholar

Lassarini, Z., “Legal and Ethical Issues of Physician Prescription and Pharmacy Sale of Syringes to Patients Who Inject Illegal Drugs: An Analysis of Ethical Issues in Prescribing and Dispensing Syringes to Injection Drug Users,” Health Matrix 11 (2001): 85–128, at 90.Google Scholar

Humber, J. M. and Almeder, R. J. Humber, J. and Almeder, R., eds. 2d ed., “Introduction to Ethical Theory,” in Biomedical Ethics and the Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1979): 1–11, at 2–3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1977): 6–7.Google Scholar

Hunt, R. and Arras, J., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto, Calif.: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): 1–48, at 12.Google Scholar

Shriver, E. K. and Shriver, S., “Foreword,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W., eds., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1977): Xi. See also Ross, W. D., “What Makes Right Acts Right?” in id. at 88.Google Scholar

Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1977): 8; Hunt, R. and Arras, J., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): 1–48, at 24–25; Lazzarini, Z., “Legal and Ethical Issues of Physician Prescription and Pharmacy Sale of Syringes to Patients Who Inject Illegal Drugs: An Analysis of Ethical Issues in Prescribing and Dispensing Syringes to Injection Drug Users,” Health Matrix 11 (2001): 85–128, at 85, 91. Many view John Rawls as a contemporary proponent of deontologism. Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., 4th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics 59 (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1994); Hunt, and Arras, , supra, at 33–36 (“Rawls’ conception of justice is… very Kantian in nature”).Google Scholar

Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1977): 8.Google Scholar

Hunt, R. and Arras, J., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto, CA.: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): At 1, 25.Google Scholar

Thomson, W. A. R., A Dictionary of Medical Ethics and Practice (Bristol: J. Wright, 1977): Preface (“the moral mores of the nation are in a state of flux”).Google Scholar

Hamida, Ben F., “Islam and Bioethics,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): 81.Google Scholar

Martin, J., “Buddhism and the Right to Respect of the Person in the Face of Risks Associated with Progress in Biotechnologies,” in id. at 93.Google Scholar

Martin, P. A., “Bioethics and the Whole: Pluralism, Consensus, and the Transmutation of Bioethical Methods into Gold,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 27 (1999): 316–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lazzarini, Z., “Legal and Ethical Issues of Physician Prescription and Pharmacy Sale of Syringes to Patients Who Inject Illegal Drugs: An Analysis of Ethical Issues in Prescribing and Dispensing Syringes to Injection Drug Users,” Health Matrix 11 (2001): 85–128, at 91.Google Scholar

Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., 5th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); Wildes, K. W., “Particularism in Bioethics: Balancing Secular and Religious Concerns,” Maryland Law Review 53 (1994): 1220–1237, at 1232.Google Scholar

Martin, P. A., “Bioethics and the Whole: Pluralism, Consensus, and the Transmutation of Bioethical Methods into Gold,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 27 (1999): 316–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wildes, K. W., “Particularism in Bioethics: Balancing Secular and Religious Concerns,” Maryland Law Review 53 (1994): 1220–1237, at 1233 n. 46, citing Jonsen, A. R. and Toulmin, S. E., The Abuse of Casuistry: A History of Moral Reasoning (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988).Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1064.Google Scholar

Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., 4th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994): 106 (“we are doubtful that…a unified foundation for ethics is discoverable”); Bandman, E. L. and Bandman, B., “General Introduction,” in Bioethics and Human Rights: A Reader for Health Professionals (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978): 3, 16 (“There are conflicts between these values. One cannot embrace Kant's ethics oriented to deontological duty simultaneously with Mill's ethic oriented to utilitarian happiness….”); Hunt, R. and Arras, J. Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto, CA.: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): 1, 44 (“It is quite conceivable that there is no possible ethical theory that will be conformable with all our attitudes”); Leake, C. D., “Preface to Second Edition,” in Percival's Medical Ethics (Huntington, N.Y.: Krieger, 1975): Vii-xi, xxxiv (“conflict”); Lazzarini, Z., “Legal and Ethical Issues of Physician Prescription and Pharmacy Sale of Syringes to Patients Who Inject Illegal Drugs: An Analysis of Ethical Issues in Prescribing and Dispensing Syringes to Injection Drug Users,” Health Matrix 11 (2001): 85–128, at 90 (“No single ethical theory or approach has achieved universal acceptance as the best or right way to resolve ethical dilemmas in medicine”); Martin, P. A., “Bioethics and the Whole: Pluralism, Consensus, and the Transmutation of Bioethical Methods into Gold,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 27 (1999): 316–324 (“competition”); Wildes, K. W., “The Emperor Has Very Few Clothes,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 365–371, at 368 (“the field of bioethics lacks consensus”).Google Scholar

Bok, S., “The Tools of Bioethics,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W., eds., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1977): 114–141, at 137, 140 (disagreements within the traditions).Google Scholar

Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., 4th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1994): 50; Smith, G. P. II, Bioethics and the Law: Medical, Socio-Legal and Philosophical Directions for a Brave New World (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993):): 1 (rule versus case utilitarians); Hunt, R. and Arras, J. Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto Calif.: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): 1, 13; Humber, J. M. and Almeder, R. F., “Introduction to Legal Theory,” in 2d ed., Biomedical Ethics and the Law (New York: Plenum Press, 1979): 1–11, at 3.Google Scholar

Hunt, R. and Arras, J., “Ethical Theory in the Medical Context,” in Hunt, R. and Arras, J., eds., Ethical Issues in Modern Medicine (Palo Alto CA.: Mayfield Pub. Co., 1977): 1–48, at 29; Lazzarini, Z., “Legal and Ethical Issues of Physician Prescription and Pharmacy Sale of Syringes to Patients Who Inject Illegal Drugs: An Analysis of Ethical Issues in Prescribing and Dispensing Syringes to Injection Drug Users,” Health Matrix 11 (2001): 85–128, at 91–92.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, E. D., “Value Neutrality, Moral Integrity, and the Physician,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 78–80, at 79; Wildes, K. W., “The Emperor Has Few Clothes,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 365–371, at 368 (“the field of bioethics lacks consensus”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 897.Google Scholar

Scofield, G., “The Wizard of Oughts,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 232–235, at 234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wildes, K. W., “Particularism in Bioethics: Balancing Secular and Religious Concerns,” Maryland Law Review 53 (1994): 1220–1237, at 1221.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 924.Google Scholar

Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564, at 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Mishkin, D. B., “Proffering Bioethicists as Experts,” The Judges’ Journal (Summer 1997): 50–89, at 50, 51.Google Scholar

McCormick, C., Evidence (5th ed. 1999): section 13, at 61; Adv.Comm.Note, Fed.R.Evid. 702, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Baylis, F., “Expert Testimony by Persons Trained in Ethical Reasoning: The Case of Andrew Sawatzky,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 224–231, at 228–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id.; Gaylin, W., “Foreword,” in Gorovitz, S. Jameton, A. Macklin, R. O'Connor, J. Perrin, E. St. Clair, B. and Sherwin, S., eds., Moral Problems in Medicine (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976): Xvi; Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 893.Google Scholar

In re Estate of Greenspan, 137 M.2d 1, 7, 558 N.E.2d 1194, 1196, 146 Ill. December 860 (1990).Google Scholar

Baylis, F., “Expert Testimony by Persons Trained in Ethical Reasoning: The Case of Andrew Sawatzky,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 224–231, at 225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dyck, A. J., “Ethics and Medicine,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W., eds., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns (Cambridge, MA.: The MIT Press, 1977): 114–141, at 118.Google Scholar

Scofield, G., “The Wizard of Oughts,” Journal Law Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 232–235, at 233–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Sharpe, V. A. and Pellegrino, E. D., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: A Reappraisal,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 373–379, at 374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scofield, G., “The Wizard of Oughts,” Journal of Law Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 232–234; Wildes, K. W., “The Emperor Has Very Few Clothes,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 365–370. See Hill, T. P., “Letter to the Editor,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 29 (2001): 4–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Wildes, K. W., “The Emperor Has Few Clothes,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 365–371, at 367; Baylis, F., “Rebuttal: Expert Ethics Testimony,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 240–242, at 241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Scofield, G., “Response: Narcissus Meets Pandora,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 28 (2000): 243–244, at 244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ramsey, P., “The Nature of Medical Ethics,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W., eds., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1977): 114–141, at 123, 125.Google Scholar

Dyck, A. J., “Ethics and Medicine,” in id. at 114, 118.Google Scholar

Hiller, M. C., “Medical Ethics and Public Policy,” in Hiller, M. C., Medical Ethics and the Law: Implications for Public Policy (Cambridge, MA.: Ballinger Publishing Co., 1981): 3–45, at 7–8.Google Scholar

Cuer, P., “Initiation to Bioethics,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care (Strasbourg; Council of Europe Pub., 1998): 23–37, at 24, 32; Tancredi, L. R., “Preface,” in Ethics of Health Care (Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1974): iii–vi, at iii, iv.Google Scholar

Id. at v; Jonsen, A. R. and Hellegers, A. R., “Conceptual Foundations for an Ethics of Medical Care,” in id. at 3, 12.Google Scholar

McGarvey, M. R., “Some Considerations Regarding Ethics and the Right to Health Care,” in Bandman, E. and Bandman, B., eds., Bioethics and Human Rights: A Reader for Health Professionals (Boston: Little, Brown, 1978): 363–366, at 365.Google Scholar

Trancredi, L. R., “Preface,” in Ethics of Health Care (Washington: National Academy of Sciences, 1974): iii, v.Google Scholar

Gorovitz, S., “Introduction,” in Gorovitz, S. Jameton, A. Macklin, R. O'Connor, J. Perrin, E. St. Clair, B. and Sherwin, S., eds., Moral Problems in Medicine (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976): 1–11, at 9.Google Scholar

Cuer, P., “Initiation to Bioethics,” in The Human Rights, Ethical and Moral Dimensions of Health Care 25, no. 32 (Strasbourg: Council of Europe Pub., 1998): 23–37.Google Scholar

Smith, G. P. II, Bioethics and the Law: Medical, Socio-Legal and Philosophical Directions for a Brave New World (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993): 25; Gorovitz, S., “Introduction,” in Gorovitz, S. Jameton, A. Macklin, R. O'Connor, J. Perrin, E. St. Clair, B. and Sherwin, S., eds., Moral Problems in Medicine (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976): 1–11, at 4–5, 8–9; Fletcher, J., “Foreword,” in Brody, H., Ethical Decisions in Medicine (Boston: Little, Brown, 1976): V.Google Scholar

Id.; Smith, G. P., Bioethiics and the Law: Medical, Socio-Legal and Philosophical Directions for a Brave New World (Lanham: University Press of America, 1993): 14; Bok, S., “The Tools of Bioethics,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W., eds., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns (Cambridge, MA.: MIT Press, 1977): 114–141, at 137.Google Scholar

Gaylin, W., “Foreword,” in Gorovitz, S. Jameton, A. Macklin, R. O'Connor, J. Perrin, E. St. Clair, B. and Sherwin, S., eds., Moral Problems in Medicine (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1976): xv–xxiv, at xv, xxiv.Google Scholar

Godwin Gruber v. Deuschle, 2002 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 14698, F.Supp.2d (N.D.Tex., August 9, 2002).Google Scholar

The Rules took effect in 1975. Carlson, R. L. Imwinkelried, E. J. Kionka, E. J. and Strachan, K., 5th ed., Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes (Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis, 2001): 16.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 902.Google Scholar

Id. at 887.Google Scholar

Id. at 902–03.Google Scholar

Id at 899.Google Scholar

Id at 903.Google Scholar

Id. at 903. See also Brophy v. New England Sinai Hosp., Inc., 398 Mass. 417, 440, 497 N.E.2d 626, 639 (1986) (“‘such principles are recognized and accepted within a significant segment of the medical profession….’”).Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 869, 903. The school's tenets and methodology are “transmissible” by testimony in court. Id. at 907.Google Scholar

Id. at 907, 910.Google Scholar

Id. at 905–06. See also Agich, G. F. and Spielman, B. J., “Ethics Expert Testimony: Against the Skeptics,” Journal of Medicine & Philosophy 22 (1997): 381–403, at 383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 903.Google Scholar

Id. at 904–05.Google Scholar

Professor Rich observes that many ethicists strongly resist such simplistic categorization.Google Scholar

Kipnis, K., “Confessions of an Expert Ethics Witness,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 325–343, at 331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 588–59 (1993)(“liberal thrust,” “permissive”); Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, 488 U.S. 153, 169 (1988); Carlson, R. L. Imwinkelried, E. J. Kionka, E. K. and Strachan, K., 5th ed., Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes (Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis, 2001): 617, 621–22.Google Scholar

Adv.Comm.Note, Fed.R.Evid. 703,28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Mishkin, D. B., “Proffering Bioethicists as Experts,” The Judges’ Journal (Summer 1997): 50–89.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1047.Google Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 293–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1068–70.Google Scholar

Id. at 1066–67.Google Scholar

Fed. R. Evid. 401–02, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Id. at Fed. R. Evid. 403.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 402–09; Davis, K.C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984; Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): 69–95. See Adv.Comm.Note, Fed.R.Evid. 201, 28 U.S.C.A. (“The terminology was coined by Professor Kenneth Davis….”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1043, 1057 (“the ethicist's potential functions”). See also Risinger, D. M., “Preliminary Thoughts on a Functional Taxonomy of Expertise for the Post-Kumho World,” in Faigman, D. L. Kaye, D. H. Saks, M. J. and Sanders, J., Science in the Law: Standards, Statistics, and Research Issues (St. Paul, MN.: West Group, 2002): 66–90, Ch. 2.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, K. C., “An Approach to the Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.6, at 746 (with the fourth edition, Professor Pierce assumed authorship of the treatise originally written by Professor Kenneth Culp Davis); Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): At 69, 82.Google Scholar

Id. at 87; Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 952; Adv.Comm.Note, Fed.R.Evid. 201, 28 U.S.C.A.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairenss and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): 69–95, at 87; Davis, K. C., “An Approach to the Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 404.Google Scholar

Id. at 402.Google Scholar

Id. at 365; Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Adv.Comm.Note, Fed.R.Evid. 201, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5, at 735, citing Louisiana Association of Independent Producers v. F.E.R.C., 958 F.2d 1101, 1103 (D.C.Cir. 1992).Google Scholar

Id. at section 10.5, 732, citing Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. F.T.C., 627 F.2d 1151, 1161 (D.C.Cir. 1979), cert.denied, 447 U.S. 921 (1980). In turn, that decision cites opinions from the Second, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, and the District of Columbia circuits. See also Toth v. Grand Trunk R.R., 306 F.3d 335, 349–50 (6th Cir. 2002).Google Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5, at 732, citing Citizens of Southern Ohio, Inc. v. Pine Creek Conservancy District, 429 U.S. 651, 657 (1977).Google Scholar

Id. at section 10.6, 744.Google Scholar

Id. at section 10.6, 743.Google Scholar

Fed. R. Evid. 201, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Id. at Fed. R. Evid. 201(c)-(g).Google Scholar

Id. at Fed. R. Evid. 201(a).Google Scholar

Id. at Adv. Comm. Note, Fed. R. Evid. 201.Google Scholar

See generally Scallen, E. A., “Interpreting the Federal Rules of Evidence: The Use and Abuse of the Advisory Committee Notes,” Loyoyla of Los Angeles Law Review 28 (1995): 1283–1302.Google Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5, at 732 (again, this treatise is the immediate successor to Professor Davis’ treatise); Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 402.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5, at 735.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essay s for Austin Wakeman Scott (1964): 69, 78. See also Sealord Marine v. American Bureau, 220 F.Supp.2d 260,271 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, questions of foreign law are treated as questions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1…. In determining foreign law, the Court ‘may consider any relevant material or source, including testimony, whether or not…admissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence’”).Google Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.6, at 746.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): 69–95, at 85; Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): Section 10.6, at 746.Google Scholar

Id. See also Sealord Marine v. American Bureau, 220 F.Supp.2d 260, 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (“Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, questions of foreign law are treated as questions of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 44.1…. As with domestic law, judges may rely on…their own research….”).Google Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5, at 733, citing Charleston Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U.S. 543, 548 (1924) (Holmes, J.).Google Scholar

See generally Ariens, M., “Progress is Our Only Product: Legal Reform and the Codification of Evidence,” Law & Social Inquiry 17 (1992): 213–255 (the importance of reasoned elaboration).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Fed.R.Evid. 602, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Id. at Fed.R.Evid. 901.Google Scholar

Lewis v. Rucher, 2 Burr 1167, 1171, 97 Eng.Rep. 769, 772 (K.B. 1961). See Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 406; Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 959 Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): Section 10.6, at 744.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 406–07.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 955 (“commonplace”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id. at 955, 983 (“without even mentioning that they are doing so”).Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364, 403–04; Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): 69–95, at 85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 403–04.Google Scholar

Id., citing Jay Burns Baking v. Bryan, 264 U.S. 504 (1924).Google Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.5 at 535 and section 10.6, at 746 (“the universal practice” is to accept such information “without any restriction by ‘rules of evidence;’” the information may be submitted to the court in briefs or oral argument).Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 959, citing North End Foundry Co. v. Industrial Comm’n, 217 Wis. 363, 371, 258 N.W. 439, 442 (1935).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Davis, K. C., “An Approach to Problems of Evidence in the Administrative Process,” Harvard Law Review 55 (1942): 364–425, at 406, citing Wisconsin Ornamental Iron and Bronze Co. v. Tax Commission, 202 Wis. 355, 371, 233 N.W. 72, 75 (1930).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.6, at 746.Google Scholar

This hypothetical is loosely based on Curran v. Bosze, 141 Ill.2d 473, 566 N.E.2d 1319,153 Ill. Dec. 213 (1990).Google Scholar

Fed.R.Civ.P. 12, 28 U.S.C.A.Google Scholar

Carlson, R. L. Imwinkelried, E. J. Kionka, E. J. and Strachan, K., 5th ed., Evidence: Teaching Materials for an Age of Science and Statutes (Newark, N.J.: LexisNexis, 2001): 16–17.Google Scholar

Fletcher, J. C., “Bioethics in a Legal Forum: Confessions of an ‘Expert’ Witness,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 297–324, at 316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 870; Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 293.Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 61 (1982): 869–926, at 903 n. 138.Google Scholar

Id. at 882.Google Scholar

Kennedy, I. and Stone, J., “Making Public Policy on Medical-Moral Issues,” in Ethics and Law in Health Care and Research (Chichester, New York: Wiley, 1990): 81–103, at 82–83; Maszzoni, C. M. Mazzoni, C., ed., “Bioethics Needs Legal Regulation,” in A Legal Framework for Bioethics (The Hague: Boston: Kluwer Law International, 1998): 3, 6.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 952.Google Scholar

Sharpe, V. A. and Pellegrino, E. D., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: A Reappraisal,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 373–379, at 378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 294 (“Not all laws have moral content, of course. Traffic laws requiring motorists to drive on the right side of the road establish somewhat arbitrary patterns in order to achieve efficiency…”).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Lungren, 40 Cal.App.4th 255, 32 Cal.Rptr.2d 546, 560 (“ethical and moral overtones”), superseded, 34 Cal.Rptr.2d 556, 882 P.2d 247(1994); Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Id. at 295.Google Scholar

Beauchamp, T. and Childress, J., 4th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics 8–10 (New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1994).Google Scholar

Id. at 8. See also Dyck, A., “Ethics and Medicine,” in Reiser, S. Dyck, A. and Curran, W, eds., Ethics in Medicine: Historical Perspectives and Contemporary Concerns 114, 115, 119 (Cambridge: The MIT Press, 1977): 114–141 (“moral policy”).Google Scholar

Morreim, E. H., “Bioethics, Expertise, and the Courts: An Overview and an Argument for Inevitability,” Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 22 (1997): 291–295, at 293–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Keeton, W., ed., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th ed. (St. Paul, Minn: West Group, 1984): section 4, at 21.Google Scholar

Dobbs, D. B., The Law of Torts (St. Paul, MN.: West Group, 2000): section 8, at 12.Google Scholar

Beaumchamp, T. and Childress, J., 4th ed., Principles of Biomedical Ethics (1994): 95, 102, 110 (ethicists often agree on normative questions even when they cannot agree why they agreed).Google Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 897.Google Scholar

Biesanz, J. and Biesanz, M., Introduction to Sociology (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969): 586; Broom, L. and Selznick, P., 5th ed., Sociology (New York: Harper & Row, 1973): 607–08; Lipset, and Schneider, , “Political Sociology,” in Smelser, N., ed., Sociology: An Introduction (New York: Wiley, 1973): 399–491, at 405; Sternberger, , “Legitimacy,” in Sills, D., ed., International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences 9 (New York: Macmillan, 1968, 1979): 244–248.Google Scholar

Nesson, C., “The Evidence or the Event? On Judicial Proof and the Acceptability of Verdicts,” Harvard Law Review 98 (1985): 1960–1970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

See generally Bix, B., 2d ed., Jurisprudence: Theory and Context (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 1999): Chs. 1–7.Google Scholar

Morawetz, T., The Philosophy of Law: An Introduction (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1980): 3, 10, 71.Google Scholar

Id. at 13, 26, 29.Google Scholar

Id. at 14, 19, 29–30, 54.Google Scholar

See generally Posner, R., The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory (Cambridge, MA.: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1999).Google Scholar

Morawetz, T., The Philosophy of Law: An Introduction (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., Inc., 1980): 14, 38, 40, 62; “Symposium in Memory of Professor Edgar Bodenheimer: The Reemergence of Natural Law Jurisprudence in Decisional Law,” U.C. Davis Law Review 26 (1993): 503–725.Google Scholar

Davis, K. C., “Judicial Notice,” Columbia Law Review 55 (1955): 945–984, at 955, 983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Pierce, R. J. Jr., Administrative Law Treatise, 4th ed. (New York, N.Y.: Aspen Law & Business, 2002): section 10.6, at 754; Davis, K. C., “A System of Judicial Notice Based on Fairness and Convenience,” in Pound, R. Griswold, E. and Sutherland, A., eds., Perspectives of Law: Essays for Austin Wakeman Scott (Boston: Little, Brown, 1964): 69–95, at 81, 94–95.Google Scholar

O’Malley, K. F. Grenig, J. E. and Lee, W. C., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil, 5th ed. (St. Paul, MN.: West Group, 2000): section 128.81 (the instruction on punitive damages tells the jurors to consider “the degree of reprehensibility of the defendant's conduct”); Comm. Standard Jury Instructions, Civil, Super.Ct., L.A. Cty, Cal., California Jury Instructions-Civil Baji 7.12, 9th ed. (2002)(the California pattern instruction on punitive damages in libel/slander cases directs the jurors to consider “[t]he reprehensibility of the conduct of the defendant”).Google Scholar

Alternatively, the judge may appoint an expert. See Fed.R.Evid. 706, 28 U.S.C.A. Professor Rich speculates that if the bioethical community became aware that they could opine on purely general legislative issues in court, more bioethicists would be willing to participate in judicial proceedings. Some of his colleagues have told him that they are uncomfortable appearing as a partisan witness.Google Scholar

See Risinger, D. M., “Preliminary Thoughts on a Functional Taxonomy of Expertise for the Post-Kumho World,” Seton Hall Law Review 31 (2000): 508–536, at 526 (“the official delegation of a normative, or value-judgment function to the jury”).Google Scholar

Dobbs, D. B., The Law of Torts (St. Paul, MN: West Group, 2000): section 8, at 12; Keeton, W., ed., Prosser and Keeton on the Law of Torts, 5th ed. (St. Paul, MN.: West Group, 1984): section 4, at 21.Google Scholar

See Ferguson v. Lieff, Cabraser, Heiman, 30 Cal.4th 1037, 69 P.3d 965, 135 Cal.Rptr.2d 46, 54 (2003) (in discussing the propriety of awarding punitive damages, the court resorted to such expressions as “moral determination,” “moral condemnation,” and “moral judgment”).Google Scholar

Comm. Standard Jury Instructions, Civil, Super.Ct, L.A.Cty, Cal., California Jury Instructions-Civil Baji 14.71, 9th ed. (2002)(the definition of “despicable conduct” as a basis for awarding punitive damages).Google Scholar

Professor Rich suggested that the author add an explanation for readers who are bioethicists rather than lawyers. In this context, the use of the expression, “open court,” does not imply that other procedural settings are secret or closed to the public. Rather, in litigation parlance, “open court” means that the evidence is presented in the hearing of the jury rather than out of the hearing of the trier of fact.Google Scholar

At one time, in at least several states jurors were judges of the law as well as the facts. Sparf v. United States, 156 U.S. 51 (1895) (discussing the English view and the history of the American jurisprudence on the issue); Krauss, S. D., “An Inquiry into the Right of Criminal Juries to Determine the Law in Colonial America,” Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology 89 (1998): 111–214. It is understandable that that view enjoyed support immediately after the Revolution; during that period, America had a fresh memory of the enforcement of oppressive laws by the King's judges. Many Americans believed that lay jurors should have the right to nullify the law described in the judge's instructions. However, in the late 19th century the Sparf established that in federal court, the judge's legal instructions bind the jury; federal jurors might have the power to nullify the law, but they no longer have the right to do so. The role of the modern petit jurors is largely confined to finding the historical facts. If there is a normative question to be answered, it is typically allocated to the judge. Risinger, D. M., “Preliminary Thoughts on a Functional Taxonomy of Expertise for the Post-Kumho World,” Seton Hall Law Review 31 (2000): 508–536, at 526. If in the exceptional modern case the question is assigned to the jury, it is usually based on the policy judgment that the peculiar issue requires a democratic infusion of lay values.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Comm. Standard Jury Instructions, Super.Ct.L.A.Cty., Cal., California Jury Instructions-Civil Baji 7.12, 9th ed. (2002); O’Malley, K. F. Grenig, J. E. and Lee, W. C., Federal Jury Practice and Instructions: Civil, 5th ed. (St. Paul, MN.: West Group, 2000): section 128.81. See State Farm v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 403 (2003); BMW of North America, Inc. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996); Rhone-Poulenc Agro, S.A. v. Dekalb Genetics Corp., 345 F.3d 1366 (Fed.Cir. 2003); TVT Records v. Island Def Jam Musk Group, 279 F.Supp.2d 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2003); McClain v. Metabo-life Intern., Inc., 259 F.Supp.2d 1225, 1231–32 (N.D.Ala. 2003); Frey, A. L., “No More Blind Man's Bluff on Punitive Damages: A Plea to the Drafters of Pattern Jury Instructions,” Litigation 29 (Summer 2003): 24–28.Google Scholar

Marcus, P., The Entrapment Defense (Charlottesville, VA.: Michie Co., 1989): section 10.03.Google Scholar

See generally id. at Ch. 5.Google Scholar

United States v. Harris, 997 F.2d 812 (10th Cir. 1993); People v. Jamieson, 436 Mich. 61, 461 N.W.2d 884 (1990); Starkey v. State, 647 S.W.2d 350 (Tex.Ct.App. 1982); Ransom v. State, 630 S.W.2d 904 (Tex.Ct.App. 1982); Marcus, P., The Entrapment Defense (Charlottesville, VA.: Michie Co., 1989): section 5.01, at 175, 5.02, at 177 (1989). See also Cruz v. State, 465 So.2d 516 (Fla.1985); State v. Glosson, 462 So.2d 1082 (Fla.1985); Annot., Action by state official involving defendant as constituting “outrageous” government conduct violating due process guaranties, 18 A.L.R.5th 1(1994).Google Scholar

Marcus, P., The Entrapment Defense (Charlottesville, VA.: Michie Co., 1989): section 5.02, at 177.Google Scholar

Id. at sections 5.06, 5.07; Hill v. City of Cleveland, 12 F.3d 575 (6th Cir. 1993); United States v. Cuervelo, 949 F.2d 559 (2d Cir. 1991); United States v. Taylor, 931 F.Supp. 1447, 1453 n. 3 (N.D.Ind. 1996), aff’d, 154 F.3d 675 (7th Cir.), cert.denied, 525 U.S. 1060 (1998); United States v. Collins, 755 F.Supp. 110 (S.D.N.Y. 1991); United States v. Killough, 607 F.Supp. 1009 (D.C.Ark. 1985); Commonwealth v. Monteagudo, 427 Mass. 484, 693 N.E.2d 381 (1998).Google Scholar

Marcus, P., The Entrapment Defense (Charlottesville, VA.: Michie Co., 1989): section 5.08; Lafave, W. R., Criminal Law, 3rd ed. (St. Paul, Minn.: West, 2000): Section 5.2, at 461; Robinson, P. H., Criminal Law Defenses (St. Paul, MN.: West, 1984): 209(c), at 517 n. 21.Google Scholar

Spielman, B. and Agich, G., “The Future of Bioethics Testimony: Guidelines for Determining Qualifications, Reliability, and Helpfulness,” San Diego Law Review 36 (1999): 1043–1075, at 1065–68.Google Scholar

Fed. R. Evid. 401–02, 28 U.S.C.A.; United States v. Nasson, 9 F.3d 155, 162 (1st Cir. 1993)(“The threshold for relevance is very low under Federal Rule of Evidence 401”), cert.denied, 510 U.S. 1207(1994).Google Scholar

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993).Google Scholar

Id. at 594; Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 141 (1999).Google Scholar

Id at 157; General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 146 (1997).Google Scholar

Pellegrino, E. D. and Sharpe, V. A., “Medical Ethics in the Courtroom: The Need for Scrutiny,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine 32 (1989): 547–564, at 559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Veatch, R. M., Case Studies in Medical Ethics (Cambridge, MA.: Harvard University Press, 1977): 3; Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 894.Google Scholar

Mishkin, D. B., “Proffering Bioethicists as Experts,” The Judges’ Journal (Summer 1997): 50–89, at 89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Delgado, R. and McAllen, P., “The Moralist as Expert Witness,” Boston University Law Review 62 (1982): 869–926, at 903.Google Scholar

Cf. Joseph, G., “Less than ‘Certain’ Medical Testimony,” Trial 14 (January 1978): 50–54, (at one time as a matter of evidence law the courts insisted that any expert opinion be couched as a reasonable scientific certainty; however, substantive Tort law increasingly permitted the recovery of futuristic damages; that substantive law development prompted the courts to relax the evidentiary rule).Google Scholar

Holmes, O. W., The Common Law (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1881): 127. See also United States v. Wurzbach, 280 U.S. 396, 399 (1930); Irwin v. Gavit, 268 U.S. 161, 168 (1925)(Holmes, J.); Schlesinger v. Wisconsin, 270 U.S. 230, 241 (1926)(Holmes, J., dissenting)(“the great body of the law consists in drawing such lines….”).Google Scholar

Bodenheimer, E. Oakley, J. B. and Love, J. C., 2nd ed., An Introduction to the Anglo-American Legal System: Readings and Cases (St. Paul, MN.: West Pub. Co., 1988): 4–7.Google Scholar

Id. at 4.Google Scholar

Id. at 5.Google Scholar