Summary: The expert witness' job is often described as a balancing act: duty to clients on the one hand, duty to society on the other. Forensic Ethics and the Expert Witness probes beyond this familiar conflict of interest framework to present a new, innovative model of professional ethics. Illustrated with cases from medicine, psychiatry, and law, this volume examines the common moral ground that links these usually separate domains, and relates forensic ethics to larger concepts of morality and justice. In this integrative approach, the expert witness is redefined as one who can balance professional with societal and personal codes in what the authors call "robust professionalism." Three renowned ethicists: Analyze ethical dilemmas expert witnesses commonly encounter in the courtroom; Explore the thought and practice of ethical expert witnesses; Address important questions concerning confidentiality, objectivity in testimony, and the relationship between witness and attorney; Integrate trends in moral reasoning from other fields, from classical philosophy to social contract theory to bioethics; Review standards of conduct from relevant professional organizations; Apply this discussion to the most debated areas, including competence, the insanity defense, right-to-die, and death penalty cases.

In response to a case presented by Dr. David Menkes, the authors argue for a standard of forensic practice that aspires to more than minimal requirements of ethics and law. Professional ethics for forensic experts require acknowledgment of both the duties and ideals of the profession if they are to meet societal expectations, honor the intent of legal procedure, and overcome jaundiced views of the "hired gun." Common values of transparency, truth-telling, and respect for moral relationships in professional work are suggested for analysis of this case, as are respect for the profession and its historical narrative. In fact, a robust professional ethic that requires broader consideration of personal, professional, and community values finds renewed expression in this ethical analysis.

In response to Dr. Ezra Griffith's essay, we support the view that forensic practice cannot be cleanly divided from its ethics foundation in medical and general psychiatric practice. Personal and professional values cannot be separated in formulating a unified theory of ethics for professionalism in forensic practice. We support Dr. Griffith's narrative perspective and offer a delineation of how narratives may be considered in forensic work. We would like readers to focus on both the duties and the moral ideals that ultimately define professional ethics. By honoring personal and professional narratives together, forensic professionals can advocate and reshape a system that devalues non-dominant cultures. They can also recognize more easily the influences that affect their forensic work. This kind of forensic practice, informed by narrative ethics while respecting fundamental principles, can be an essential part of what we aspire to as forensic professionals. As we argued in an earlier work, a robust professionalism for forensic psychiatry cannot ignore our physician background or our diverse personal histories. Dr. Griffith's essay contributes forcefully to the development of such a view.

Recent debates in the ethics of forensic psychiatry have centered on the applicability of traditional medical ethics to forensic practice. Two prominent theories, one taking a principled approach and another taking a narrative approach, have attempted to resolve the tension between medical and legal settings. In this article we contend that the two theories are related closely and work at two different levels: principles at the level of theory and narrative at the level of application. We offer an approach to forensic ethics that reconciles competing theoretical views by relating professional role and personal integrity.