April 25, 2001
7:25 AM Subscribe

Pathology Tribunal Collapses.
One pathologist, who asked not to be named, said last night: "This is going to call into question the credibility of the board. How can the public, let alone coroners and the police, have confidence in the crucial work it does if it can't run a disciplinary hearing?"
posted by methylsalicylate (2 comments total)

'the tribunal had been "discontinued" because members had "recused themselves because information came to their attention which could have been viewed as prejudicial". In a legal context, to recuse means to withdraw from a hearing because of a possible conflict of interest or lack of impartiality.'

That sounds a mess. Any idea why they all decided they couldn't carry on?
posted by pracowity at 7:55 AM on April 25, 2001

> Any idea why they all decided they couldn't carry on?

My *ahem* guess is that someone on the tribunal may have discussed something with the accused during a meeting they both attended.

What I found interesting is the question of how these things should be conducted. If the tribunal is composed of mostly pathologists (or whatever members of whichever profession), they will be presumably biased toward leniency. If the balance is more toward the legal side, it risks getting bogged down in lawyerly trickery. When the government dips a hand in and clues the media to the goings-on, we get a "but these are dead babies!" level of reasonable discussion.

I bet the estimate that this will cost "hundreds of thousands of pounds" is under the mark.
posted by methylsalicylate at 8:43 AM on April 25, 2001

« Older Dubya-bashing and Porn to be Salon's salvation?... | "School bullying called widesp... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

April 25, 2001 7:25 AM Subscribe

April 25, 2001
7:25 AM Subscribe