Emedinews:Insights on Medicolegal issues:Medical literature must exist in the public domain to serve as legitimate evidence in court

Do not misrepresent the document/medical literatures in the Court of Law; drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation.

1. The electronic files to which other debaters would be denied access are not published. However, files and documents which other debaters may access, even if they have no subscribe to a commercial service to do so, satisfy the publication rule.

2. The advent of the Internet has created a new form of publication – electronic documents like this e-medinews. Electronic documents are accepted as published if they are accessible by the general public.

3. The portion of a document read as evidence cannot be taken out of context. When a document is cut in a manner which lends the quoted passage a meaning other than what would be derived from a more complete reading, you are misrepresenting the document. This does not mean, however, that you are responsible for drawing the same conclusions from information as the author of the document.

4. One paragraph or even one part of a paragraph may be all that is necessary to substantiate the point a doctor want to make in a court room. Reading the remainder of the document, even if it establishes a context for the evidence, is unnecessary and time consuming. The document must potentially be available to any debater researching the topic or lawyer/interested party of cross examination side

5. Drawing a contrary conclusion from passages accurately interpreted does not constitute misrepresentation. The fact that the author of the document reached a different conclusion from the information argues – perhaps persuasively – against your conclusion. However, you have not misused the evidence.

6. Read the used evidence literature verbatim in the court of law. Documents must be presented in the words of the author. When you paraphrase evidence, you argue in a circle. A document obviously will seem to support your point if you are allowed to read into the record only what you think it says.