There is no reason to suppose that the law, when it engages in explanatory inquiries, adopts different criteria of causation from those employed outside the law in the physical and social sciences and in everyday life.
Consistency is one of the Bradford Hill's criteria of causation [ 12].
In determining whether an association is causal, the Hill criteria of causation are often applied [ 53, 54].
Per Hill's Criteria of Causation [ 21], one can reasonably conclude that this patient's dyskinesia was related to quetiapine exposure.
According to the Hill's criteria of causation, the association needs to be compatible with existing knowledge.
It should be clear then, that we have to apply different criteria of causation when considering the causes of disease at the individual or population level.
The discussion of causation in epidemiology is based on a number of criteria/models, for example, the nine criteria of causation 21, sufficient/component model 22 and the counterfactual model 23.
However, our findings at least produce a fairly good indication of causality in compliance with Hill's criteria of causation [ 48] as well as meeting all the required conditions for mediation according to Baron and Kenny [ 41].
The so-called criteria of causation, originating from the seminal work of Sir Austin Bradford Hill and Mervyn Susser, are often schematically applied disregarding the fact that they were meant neither as criteria nor as a checklist for attributing to a hazard the potential of disease causation.
