So, too, for physicians who are performing evaluations for the courts. In the words of the noted medical philosopher Edmund Pellegrino, "The subject-physician relationship [i.e., in the forensic evaluation] does not carry the implication or promise of primacy for the patient's welfare that [is] intrinsic to a true medical relationship" (2). Were it not the case that the evaluation might, if the facts warranted, result in harm to the subject, there would be no point to it at all. Thus, here as well, the ethical ground shifts under the physician, who for the sake of promoting other socially useful objectives (in this case, advancing justice), is no longer focused on benefiting a particular person. That is not to say that no ethical principles exist to guide the work of a physician performing forensic assessments. I have pointed to truth telling and respect for persons as the ethical underpinnings of forensic work (1); subsequent commentators may invoke additional principles.