The Scientific Evidence That Today’s Psychiatry Cripples Itself—By Excluding‘Intent’

PSYCHIATRISTS DISAGREE profoundly with lawyers,about what we human beings are capable of.The one says we have‘intent’—the other that we do not.They cannot both be right.All non-psychiatrist doctors must perforce agree with the lawyers.This paper argues that these harmful discrepancies will continue,until we undo the separate watertight human knowledge silos,which have grown up between legal procedures,general medicine,and psychiatric practice.All three would benefit.Psychiatry in particular,suffers from a grievously narrow view of scientific evidence,one which is open to fundamental criticism.There are radical differences in how the fuzzy concept of‘intent’is regarded in law,in general clinical medicine and in psychiatry.Once‘intent’is accorded its due weight,our understanding of justice,health and sanity is vastly improved,allowing us hugely more optimism.This paper is based on two earlier papers—The Scientific Evidence That‘Intent’Is Vital for Healthcare and Why Quakerism Is More Scientific Than Einstein.These are deployed here,to unpick the unhealthy tangle in which today’s psychiatry now finds itself.Its six sections are—(1)why‘intent’matters in law,in medicine&in psychiatry;(2)scientific quagmires;(3)a working definition for‘madness’;(4)“children are impressionable”;(5)“trust me,I’m a doctor”;and(6)skin heals,why can’t minds?The breakthrough is that verbal fuzziness means that words can mean different things at different times––not that they are 100%meaningless.Only a better understanding of trust,autonomy and consent can open the way to something that is painfully absent from today’s psychiatry––a cure for any and all mental disease.

Examining Scientific Evidence in US and Chinese Courts:A Comparative Study

The critical examination of scientific evidence is crucial in attempting to distinguish genuine science from“junk science”and provides judges with an important basis upon which to determine the credibility of expert witnesses giving scientific evidence.From studying the law in the USA,we learn that the process for examining scientific evidence in court is based upon full discovery of the proposed evidence before trial and the availability of expert witnesses at trial to testify orally and be examined and cross‑examined.Empirical studies suggest that the opportunities to critically examine scientific evidence in Chinese courts are not so freely available.Discovery is neglected,thus limiting the effectiveness of cross‑examination,and current rules do not encourage oral testimony or effective cross‑examination.To solve these problems,the disclosure duty should be put on the prosecution,rather than on the defendant.Scientific evidence should be discovered.Disclosure must include the basis,process,material relied upon,and methods of forensic appraisals.In the trial process,the prosecution has transferred the case file to court,where the defendant will be able to copy the scientific evidence.The neutrality of expert assistants established by article 192 of the new Criminal Procedural Law should be strengthened.

Busting Myths about SARS-CoV-2 Viral Pandemic to Non-medical Personnel

Background:During these moments of anxiety,fear and to some extent despair,it is imperative for everyone to have access to the right information.This can be achieved through breaking down the science and medical terminologies used to express the scenarios emanating from the COVID-19 pandemic.Forward:This commentary focuses on the most asked questions that,when not answered with scientific grounds to convince the non-medics can result in non-science based“infodemics”.The brief history behind COVID-19 pandemic,the science of SARS-CoV-2,the taxonomies used,a brief on the Pathophysiology of SARS-CoV-2,the genetic make up,most vulnerable indivduals,antibodies against COVID-19,mother to baby transmission,conspiracy theories reagading the virus being weaponized,mutations occurring with SARS-CoV-2 and reoccurrence of COVID-19 in the future are all explained at great length.The review made references to the existing publications regarding this pandemic.Conclusion:While the science regarding this virus is not exhausted,we confirmed that,the knowledge gap between non-medics and medics is wide.The results emerging from the pandemic to form data are questionable,so it is our collective responsibility to fight against this virus in order to stop further spreading by providing the right information to the public.If we would not come together to fight and win this battle,we might be witnessing many large cities turning into emerging epicenters of COVID-19.

The Role of Forensic Examination at Trials in China

Expertise gains increasing acceptance and importance at trials in China.Currently,the forensic examination quality management system of China has been preliminarily established.There are problems,however,for example,laws and regulations related with forensic examination are not comprehensive,forensic institutes pursue their own economic profits excessively and judges sometime have undue blind faith in scientific evidence in fact-finding.These are hindering forensic examination from being put into full play duly.In 2005,the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the Administration ofForensic Examination strengthened the neutrality of forensic institutes.The Criminal Procedure Law and the Civil Procedure Law revised in 2012 initially set up the expert assistant system,which is expected to break the excessively credulous but unjustified belief in scientific evidence and solve pertinent problems.We need to focus on the following aspects:First and foremost developing a unified set of rules on forensic examination;secondly,judges need to strengthen their own ability to review scientific evidence and determine its reliability;thirdly,we should actively promote fundamental legal education refonn to remedy the insufficiency of legal understanding of forensic science;and finally,the existing expert assistant system must be further improved to help judges and litigants efiectively to identify and use expertise.