350 / 822
GAZETTE
MAY 1 9 88
The point about the reproduction
size of photographs is the final
obstacle in defence of this pro-
fession. All medical photographs
are taken to a range of universally
accepted reproduction ratios. The
most common set of which are the
"Westminster Reproduction Ratios
for Standard Anatomical Regions",
and refer to a final image size on
prints no bigger than 5" x 7".
The perspective used to record
areas of anatomy are also governed
by similar standards. Medical
photography works within very
tight and rarely flexible parameters.
Photographs of facial injuries are
sometimes the subject of debate,
when one considers that the
plaintiff is present in court and the
injury can be seen without the
removal of c l o t h i ng. Where
therefore is the need for medical
photographs? The answer is one of
perspective and lies in the fact that
the judge being the arbiter, is often
making his visual assessment from
a distance and in conditions not
conducive to his task.
Some people in t he legal
profession believe that photo-
graphy as evidence is one of those
unnecessary expenses especially if
the case never gets to court. Some
have even dismissed photography
on the grounds of liability not being
an issue. However, the purpose of
photography is not to establish
liability, but to provide convincing
evidence.
Nobody can say with absolute
certainty if a case will go to court
or not, and if it does, it will more
than likely be too late for photo-
graphs to be of much benefit, if
they are commissioned at this late
stage. Surely the legal profession
has a duty to its clients to present
as good a case as possible, be that
in court or to the defence in a
settlement situation, and photo-
graphs as illustrative evidence are
the most true and fair method of
doing it.
Taking the point just raised as to
the uncertainty of a case actually
going for trial or not, it is good
acumen to have photographs of
injuries taken anyway as this will
act as a historical recording of the
injury near to the time that it was
sustained. Should the case then go
on for trial later, then the photo-
graphs can be reproduced and their
full benefit appreciated.
The idea that photography be
regarded as an expense is a some-
wh a t
Dickensian
f r uga l i t y,
especially as it is not expensive at
all.
It does not take a medical photo-
grapher to tell the legal profession
that no proof can be submitted as
evidence unless its origin can be
proved. This makes one wonder
why so many medical photographs
p r esen t ed in cou rt are not
contested.
The professional medical photo-
grapher who undertakes medico-
legal work, will carry out the entire
process himself, and this is done
for t wo reasons. On one hand, it
ensures that all the photographic
evidence presented can be proved,
and on the other hand it complies
with the codes of practice by which
medical photographers work, and
that is to say, that total con-
fidentiality of what is part of the
p l a i n t i f f 's confidential clinical
records, is guaranteed.
Medical photographers are often
asked to photograph the cause or
site of an accident as well as the
result of it. It is not unusual to find
medical photographers walking all
four sides of a cross-road photo-
graphing dotted lines in every
compass direction. They can even
be found in pot-holes, down man-
holes, up scaffolding, entangled in
industrial machinery, being pursued
by farm animals, and just right
there where the nice lady slipped in
the shop.
You will find the same methodi-
cal and scientific approach will be
given to requests for these non-
medical photographs. The trained
medical photographer for example
wouldn't dream of photographing a
road from the road edge. It is vital
that in order for the correct pers-
pective to be portrayed, and to
avoid the effect of a diverging wide
scene, photographs should be
taken from the centre of the road
itself, to a ratio comparable to that
as viewed by the naked eye, all
irrespective of the danger involved.
One must never forget that the
medical photographer comes into
c on t a ct w i t h dange r ous and
contagious disease in the course of
his daily routine, and the prospect
of being embedded onto the road
surface by a truck, is of little
concern.
Photographs to be used as illustrative evidence of the
scene of an accident are best taken from the centre
of the road.
Photographs taken from the kerb or the edge of the
road can give a misleading
perspective.
114