Epidemiological evidence in law: a comment on Supreme Court Decision 2011Da22092, South Korea.

Alex Broadbent

doi:10.4178/epih/e2015025

Abstract

This paper offers a commentary on three aspects of the Supreme Court’s recent decision (2011Da22092). First, contrary to the Court’s finding, this paper argues that epidemiological evidence can be used to estimate the probability that a given risk factor caused a disease in an individual plaintiff. Second, the distinction between specific and non-specific diseases, upon which the Court relies, is shown to be without scientific basis. Third, this commentary points out that the Court’s finding concerning defect of expression effectively enables tobacco companies to profit from the efforts of epidemiologists and others involved in public health to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking.

Highlights

Alex BroadbentThis paper offers a commentary on three aspects of the Supreme Court’s recent decision (2011Da22092)
The Korean Supreme Court recently announced a number of findings concerning the relevance of epidemiological evidence for proving individual causation in connection with smoking and lung cancer
This commentary identifies three elements of the decision that are of potential interest to epidemiologists and others involved in public health, both within and outside Korea: 1.Whether it is possible to prove causation in an individual plaintiff using epidemiological evidence; 2.Whether there is a real scientific or factual difference between “specific” and “non-specific” diseases, as identified by the Court; 3.Whether the judgement was correct in holding that tobacco companies had adequately warned smokers of the dangers of smoking

Summary

Alex Broadbent

This paper offers a commentary on three aspects of the Supreme Court’s recent decision (2011Da22092). Contrary to the Court’s finding, this paper argues that epidemiological evidence can be used to estimate the probability that a given risk factor caused a disease in an individual plaintiff. The distinction between specific and non-specific diseases, upon which the Court relies, is shown to be without scientific basis. This commentary points out that the Court’s finding concerning defect of expression effectively enables tobacco companies to profit from the efforts of epidemiologists and others involved in public health to raise awareness of the dangers of smoking

INTRODUCTION

PROVING CAUSATION USING EPIDEMIOLOGICAL EVIDENCE

WARNINGS ABOUT THE DANGERS OF SMOKING

Findings

CONCLUSION