Semantics

This is a further area of contention. The terms used everyday by physicians such as acute and
chronic may be understood by the non-medical person, but not in the same way as was meant by the
medic. Thus evidence may be given at length, in a relaxed and thoroughly professional manner, and
the doctor leaves the court (or is not present, the "section 9" statement having been read). The judge,
jury and counsel are left with an understanding of the medical matters in the case totally different
from that which was intended by the doctor.
An example is given here from the lecture given by Crown Prosecution Service to North-West
Police Surgeons Development Training Course 18 February 1994.
In a real statement, used as an example, the doctor had used the words "he denied using illicit drugs. . ." as
part of his summary of the medical history of the examinee. The Crown Prosecutor leading the session voiced
her opinion that "denied" was a poor choice of word, as the doctor gave no indication to indicate why he knew
the individual was using illicit drugs. That the doctor involved, as well as the other assembled medics, all
accepted the use of this particular phrase as standard medical practice to show that to a question about the use
of illicit drugs, the person had answered "no'', and that there was no slant, weight or any other opinion
inherent in the phrase, was futile if the lay person would understand something different. Here the Crown
Prosecutor had assumed that this particular structure of words had indicated a refutation by the examinee of a
practice assumed by the doctor to be part of the examinee's profile and about which the police surgeon had
issued a challenge.
The fault in the above illustration lies with the medics. No assumption should be made by police
surgeons that everyday words used by them in practice, which are not properly classified as
technical words (see terminology above), can be used casually in an evidential manner.