Forensic dentistry

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6

A. I. Rybakov in the monograph "Mistakes and complications in therapeutic stomatology" leads the classification of defects in the activity of physicians-dentists. The author's classification is of great importance not only in the professional dental plan, but in the forensic against, especially when considering the Commission in the examination of questions about violations in the activities of dentists and other medical professionals dental institutions. However, the author identifies a separate group, where, in his opinion, should be included the defects in the result of the negligence and negligence of the physician, medical personnel". It is obvious that such concepts as "negligence" and "negligence", introducing legal various forms of fault are legal concepts, and their qualification belongs to the competence of the forensic-medical expert Commission, and the bodies of investigation and court.
The expert in forensic dental examination should provide in its opinion, the answers to the questions posed by the bodies of inquiry, investigator, Prosecutor or court. However, the law provides that if the results of the examination it is possible to expand the circle of the questions, important for the matter, and they are within its competence, the expert has the right to answer them in its opinion (article 191 of the code of criminal procedure of the RSFSR and similar articles of the CPC Union republics).
The expert opinion is one of the evidence in the case, and the significance of it is equivalent to investigation bodies and court, along with other evidence. In the process of investigation or court, if there are contradictions between the data of certain evidence, the expert opinion is not binding and investigation bodies and the court can take it into consideration, but they are in this case are obliged to motivate its disagreement.
In this regard, it is a misconception I. B. Dmitrieva that the identification of the individual teeth is indisputable proof. Such research is undoubtedly a scientifically sound, but it give evidence, the investigating authorities or the court in each case, comparing it with other forensic evidence.
This is the principled position of the Soviet justice is especially important nowadays, when the founders and supporters of foreign theories of social protection and biopsychological direction (Karpman, Ancel, Gramatica, Gliick, Barnes, Teeters and others) suggest not new in the history of law the position of the substitution clarify in forensic investigation process character of actions of the offender establishing personal, biological and other characteristics. Again, as in the days of'clock Lombroso, the expert anthropologist, expert-physician are erected in a rank of the judge, the conclusion of which in essence is considered as a sentence. Hence judgment that "the courts shall be replaced by a professional panel of experts" (Barnes, Teeters), which should be therapeutically-minded people" (Gluck), i.e. they must think like doctors dealing with patients, and not as lawyers seeking to observance of the law. The dentist may participate in the judicial investigation process not only as the expert, but also as a specialist (examination of the corpse to the place of its discovery, the investigative experiment, and others). In these cases, the doctor is involved in investigative or judicial actions, providing Advisory assistance to the investigator or the court, using their professional, dental knowledge.
Thus, in the forensic investigation process dentist participates as an independent entity - the expert whose opinion is one of the evidence in the case, and may perform the role of consultant forensic investigators. Strict observance of procedural law that defines the participation of the doctor-stomatologist in forensic investigation process, is the norm of socialist legality.