Choroba – obrona – manipulacja: trudności opiniowania sądowo-psychiatrycznego          609–622
Psychiatr Pol 2008;42(4):609-622
The challenges met by the psychiatrist and the psychologist and the difficulties in providing forensic-psychiatry and forensic-psychology opinions have been reviewed, based on examples. The studied patient was hospitalised 10 times and the forensic-psychiatry opinion passed 15 times during the judiciary process. Different psychiatric diagnoses were made and different soundness of mind were passed. The psychiatric health status were expresses by professors of psychiatry who did not participate directly in passing the forensic-psychiatry opinion. The studied patient was examined by other specialists and assessed by certificating medical doctors with the aim of getting disability pension benefits. The effect of medical certificates and testimonials from different medical doctors were analysed. Analysing this example, revealed the problem of proper formulation of content of medical documents to support the medical diagnosis and declared soundness of mind during the passing of forensic-psychiatry opinion. The doctors treating the patients and doctors passing opinion on the treated patient had a different assessment of the diagnoses and soundness of mind for the studied patients. Irrespective of the immediate aim of the examinations, all professionals providing assessment should mind the consequences of opinions passed by them and especially, the possibility of the opinion being used by the subject to prolong the judiciary process or even avoid legal responsibility. The independence (sovereignty) of the expert requires consideration in the context of prior multiple forensic-psychiatry opinion leaders in the field of psychiatry and the need for the expert to assume an attitude towards these opinions.
Journals System - logo
Scroll to top