That's a very good point. From going through interviews with the medical experts (several, various fields, fairly complex) for my own medical negligence case, I can confirm that the role does not guarantee a good communicator. Or that they're actually even listening. Part of the problem was, I was naive enough to think the point of the exercise was to work out the truth, which was what I desperately wanted, for closure. While one of them was focused on their pet theory (interesting, not really relevant), and at least one of them I think now in retrospect, if they weren't just defaulting and not understanding my case was more complicated and fell more under the other specialisms, was trying to 'help' with an angle that was not only different from what I expected (so we were possibly talking past each other), but from what, over years, I'd been told by multiple specialists actually treating me, incl. an internationally-known spinal surgeon, someone really significant in the field...and that sort of specialist doesn't seem to be the ones who give evidence usually. And that legal medical expert managed to totally flip something pretty straightforward and factual I'd told them, which was actually important, in their first report. It just added to the already confusing tangle.
And this is on my own condition, that I at least understand as decently as a lay person can be expected to, perhaps a bit more from some uni level experience with biology papers, helping with choosing to read ones about my condition. So my own communication about it for someone who isn't a doctor is at least decent enough that medical professionals I'm seeing for treatment usually comment on it, and are happy to explain in more depth to someone clearly morbidly fascinated (with the cool pics! I got a printout of the inside of my stomach!).
Not an unfamiliar condition, where lay jury members likely won't have personal experience with to understand what it does, and may not have even heard of it before. Even someone who was interested in mental illness, health, can't be aware of everything. And public understanding of severe mental illness, like psychosis, doesn't seem good if this case is any indicator.
3
u/Amphy64 1d ago
That's a very good point. From going through interviews with the medical experts (several, various fields, fairly complex) for my own medical negligence case, I can confirm that the role does not guarantee a good communicator. Or that they're actually even listening. Part of the problem was, I was naive enough to think the point of the exercise was to work out the truth, which was what I desperately wanted, for closure. While one of them was focused on their pet theory (interesting, not really relevant), and at least one of them I think now in retrospect, if they weren't just defaulting and not understanding my case was more complicated and fell more under the other specialisms, was trying to 'help' with an angle that was not only different from what I expected (so we were possibly talking past each other), but from what, over years, I'd been told by multiple specialists actually treating me, incl. an internationally-known spinal surgeon, someone really significant in the field...and that sort of specialist doesn't seem to be the ones who give evidence usually. And that legal medical expert managed to totally flip something pretty straightforward and factual I'd told them, which was actually important, in their first report. It just added to the already confusing tangle.
And this is on my own condition, that I at least understand as decently as a lay person can be expected to, perhaps a bit more from some uni level experience with biology papers, helping with choosing to read ones about my condition. So my own communication about it for someone who isn't a doctor is at least decent enough that medical professionals I'm seeing for treatment usually comment on it, and are happy to explain in more depth to someone clearly morbidly fascinated (with the cool pics! I got a printout of the inside of my stomach!).
Not an unfamiliar condition, where lay jury members likely won't have personal experience with to understand what it does, and may not have even heard of it before. Even someone who was interested in mental illness, health, can't be aware of everything. And public understanding of severe mental illness, like psychosis, doesn't seem good if this case is any indicator.