† In drafting this article, the authors consulted with physicians from several specialties (e.g., emergency medicine, forensic pathology, pediatrics, and radiology) to ensure the article uses medical terminology accurately and canvasses the relevant medical literature sufficiently. But, as this paper discusses, the issues surrounding the SBS/AHT controversy matter principally for legal, not medical, purposes. Lawyers present and debate the evidence regarding the diagnosis in court cases; judges decide whether, given the controversy, such evidence is sufficiently reliable to be admitted; and judges and jurors must evaluate testimony based on the diagnosis and decide what weight to give to it. Although the terminology and medical concepts can be daunting to lawyers and judges new to the subject, persons with legal training are fit to evaluate the evidence underlying the diagnosis and, ultimately, judges are obligated to determine what role the controversial diagnosis may play in legal proceedings. * Partner, Lewis Roca Rothgerber Christie LLP.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.