析人体损伤程度鉴定的操作原则
|
摘要
对人体损伤程度鉴定意见的要求就是"程序合法、结论准确"。程序是否合法,法医鉴定人主动作为的作用较小;而"结论准确",却是法医鉴定人必须追求和努力做到的并为此而需要掌握损伤程度鉴定的基本操作原则。鉴定操作原则和鉴定原则不同,它是法医鉴定人在面对每一起损伤程度案件鉴定时所应展现的专业水准,是对每一起损伤程度鉴定时的操作方法。本文通过对53起鉴定意见不一致的损伤程度鉴定案件进行分析,认为法医鉴定人在损伤程度鉴定时需把握的操作原则是:明确外伤病史;损伤的法医学认定要准确;损伤机制与结果之间具有因果关系;伤病关系划分要清晰。
Legal procedure and accurate conclusion are the requirement to assessment opinion of human body injury degree. Whether the procedure is legal or not has little effect on the initiative of the forensic examiner; while accurate conclusion is what the forensic expert must pursue and diligently achieves and therefore it is the basic oper?ating principle which needs to be grasped. Assessment operation principle is different from appraisal principle,which is the professional standard that forensic appraisers show when they face each injury assessment, and the oper?ation method of each injury assessment. Based on the analysis of 53 cases of injury assessment with inconsistent opinions, this paper holds that the operating principles that forensic appraisers should grasp in injury assessment are: defining the history of trauma; identifying forensic appraisal of injuries accurately; establishing the causal rela?tionship between injury mechanisms and outcomes; and identifying injury-disease relationship clearly.
Legal procedure and accurate conclusion are the requirement to assessment opinion of human body injury degree. Whether the procedure is legal or not has little effect on the initiative of the forensic examiner; while accurate conclusion is what the forensic expert must pursue and diligently achieves and therefore it is the basic oper?ating principle which needs to be grasped. Assessment operation principle is different from appraisal principle,which is the professional standard that forensic appraisers show when they face each injury assessment, and the oper?ation method of each injury assessment. Based on the analysis of 53 cases of injury assessment with inconsistent opinions, this paper holds that the operating principles that forensic appraisers should grasp in injury assessment are: defining the history of trauma; identifying forensic appraisal of injuries accurately; establishing the causal rela?tionship between injury mechanisms and outcomes; and identifying injury-disease relationship clearly.
引文
[1]张继宗,刘鑫,刘鸿彬.《人体损伤程度鉴定标准》实践问题及对策[J].中国法医学杂志,2017,3(32):233-234.
[2]公安部刑事侦查局.人体损伤程度鉴定标准释义[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2013:205.
[3]常林.论人体损伤程度鉴定的原则[J].证据科学,2013,21(6):701-708.
[4]沈德胜.论临床诊断与法医学鉴定结论的区别[J].法律与医学杂志,2001,1(8):35.
[5]李晓郛,俞小海.从司法实践看《人体损伤程度鉴定标准》的适用[J].中国司法鉴定,2014(6):107-109.
[6]陈文彬,潘祥林.诊断学[M].人民卫生出版社,第三版,2010:205.
[7]夏晴,高东,黄婷婷,等.等速肌力检测在辨别伪肢体瘫中的应用[J].法医学杂志,2014,30(6):427-430.
[8]张松,张广清.骨折机制分析3例[J].刑事技术,2011(3):71-72.
[9]杜宇.43例手舟骨骨折成伤机制的法医学分析[J].法医学杂志,2015,2(31):123-125.
[10]夏文涛,周姝.准确分析伤病关系是人体损伤程度鉴定的关键[J].中国司法鉴定,2013,6(71):45-49.
[11]朱广友,范利华,夏文涛,等.《人体损伤程度鉴定标准》理解与适用——总则[J].法医学杂志,2013,6(29):458-461.
[2]公安部刑事侦查局.人体损伤程度鉴定标准释义[M].北京:中国人民公安大学出版社,2013:205.
[3]常林.论人体损伤程度鉴定的原则[J].证据科学,2013,21(6):701-708.
[4]沈德胜.论临床诊断与法医学鉴定结论的区别[J].法律与医学杂志,2001,1(8):35.
[5]李晓郛,俞小海.从司法实践看《人体损伤程度鉴定标准》的适用[J].中国司法鉴定,2014(6):107-109.
[6]陈文彬,潘祥林.诊断学[M].人民卫生出版社,第三版,2010:205.
[7]夏晴,高东,黄婷婷,等.等速肌力检测在辨别伪肢体瘫中的应用[J].法医学杂志,2014,30(6):427-430.
[8]张松,张广清.骨折机制分析3例[J].刑事技术,2011(3):71-72.
[9]杜宇.43例手舟骨骨折成伤机制的法医学分析[J].法医学杂志,2015,2(31):123-125.
[10]夏文涛,周姝.准确分析伤病关系是人体损伤程度鉴定的关键[J].中国司法鉴定,2013,6(71):45-49.
[11]朱广友,范利华,夏文涛,等.《人体损伤程度鉴定标准》理解与适用——总则[J].法医学杂志,2013,6(29):458-461.