Duty to protect

Last updated

In medical law and medical ethics, the duty to protect is the responsibility of a mental health professional to protect patients and others from foreseeable harm. [1] If a client makes statements that suggest suicidal or homicidal ideation, the clinician has the responsibility to take steps to warn potential victims, and if necessary, initiate involuntary commitment. [2] [ page needed ] The majority of people have, at some stage, had thoughts about killing someone, but the seriousness or intention of carrying out these thoughts may differ among persons and individual circumstances. [3]

Contents

United States

The duty to protect was established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California , [4] [ page needed ] which has been widely adopted by other states. [5] This case determined that the clinician has the duty to warn an identifiable victim. Jablonski by Pahls v. United States extended this responsibility to include the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual.[ citation needed ] Ewing v. Goldstein extended the duty to protect to include acting upon the statements of third parties that indicate possible threat, and determined that it was not sufficiently discharged by initiating involuntary commitment; warning identifiable victims is also necessary. [5]

United Kingdom

Selwood v Durham City Council created a limited duty to warn in the United Kingdom. The case involved a social worker, Claire Selwood, who was seriously injured after being assaulted by an individual who was being treated by a mental health professionals employed by Durham City Council. Selwood worked closely with the mental health workers responsible for the individuals care, though did not have the same employer. During treatment the individual said of Selwood, that they would "kill her on the spot" if they saw her. In her ruling, Dame Janet Smith said that there was a distinction between a duty to someone working closely with a defendant, as in this case, and the public at large. [6]

The Counter-Terrorism and Security Act 2015 created a duty of individuals working in healthcare and education to report individuals deemed at risk of radicalisation to the police where they will be invited to participate in Channel (part of the UK's CONTEST antiterrorism program), a program that refers individuals to other services. [7] :21 The passing of this legislation resulted in an open letter by academics predicting that this legislation would create a chilling effect and arguing that the lack of open debate would create greater risk for society. [8]

Criticism

Statistical modelling estimate that duty to protect laws result in a 5% increase in homicides and an 8-10% increase in adolescent suicide. [9] :344 [10] :7 The increase in homicide may be due to patients withholding homicidal thoughts, therapists choosing not to explore homicidal thoughts, or therapists choosing not to treat high-risk patients due to legal risk. [9] :344

The duty to protect has been criticized by some clinical psychologists because it may prevent people seeking help and in fact may cause unnecessary violence because it prevents clients from getting support in resolving their problems, and that it is peculiar that a friend or acquaintance has no duty to divulge information, while a psychotherapist who is seemingly in a position of trust must. [11] :421 In the Tarasoff case, the police had been warned about Podar resulting in his being questioned, released, and then ceasing to work with his psychiatrist. [11] The violation of confidentiality in this case could be viewed as the cause of the murder. [11] :418 The implementation and enforcement of this law has been inconsistent and difficult.[ original research? ]

See also

Related Research Articles

Involuntary commitment, civil commitment, or involuntary hospitalization/hospitalisation is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified person to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily. This treatment may involve the administration of psychoactive drugs, including involuntary administration. In many jurisdictions, people diagnosed with mental health disorders can also be forced to undergo treatment while in the community; this is sometimes referred to as outpatient commitment and shares legal processes with commitment.

Outpatient commitment—also called assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) or community treatment orders (CTO)—refers to a civil court procedure wherein a legal process orders an individual diagnosed with a severe mental disorder to adhere to an outpatient treatment plan designed to prevent further deterioration or recurrence that is harmful to themselves or others.

Anti-psychiatry, sometimes spelled antipsychiatry without the hyphen, is a movement based on the view that psychiatric treatment is often more damaging than helpful to patients, highlighting controversies about psychiatry. Objections include the reliability of psychiatric diagnosis, the questionable effectiveness and harm associated with psychiatric medications, the failure of psychiatry to demonstrate any disease treatment mechanism for psychiatric medication effects, and legal concerns about equal human rights and civil freedom being nullified by the presence of diagnosis. Historical critiques of psychiatry came to light after focus on the extreme harms associated with electroconvulsive therapy or insulin shock therapy. The term "anti-psychiatry" is in dispute and often used to dismiss all critics of psychiatry, many of whom agree that a specialized role of helper for people in emotional distress may at times be appropriate, and allow for individual choice around treatment decisions.

Edwin Fuller Torrey, is an American psychiatrist and schizophrenia researcher. He is associate director of research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI) and founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC), a nonprofit organization whose principal activity is promoting the passage and implementation of outpatient commitment laws and civil commitment laws and standards in individual states that allow people diagnosed with severe mental illness to be involuntarily hospitalized and treated throughout the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Forensic psychiatry</span> Subspeciality of psychiatry, related to criminology

Forensic psychiatry is a subspeciality of psychiatry and is related to criminology. It encompasses the interface between law and psychiatry. According to the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, it is defined as "a subspecialty of psychiatry in which scientific and clinical expertise is applied in legal contexts involving civil, criminal, correctional, regulatory, or legislative matters, and in specialized clinical consultations in areas such as risk assessment or employment." A forensic psychiatrist provides services – such as determination of competency to stand trial – to a court of law to facilitate the adjudicative process and provide treatment, such as medications and psychotherapy, to criminals.

A duty to warn is a concept that arises in the law of torts in a number of circumstances, indicating that a party will be held liable for injuries caused to another, where the party had the opportunity to warn the other of a hazard and failed to do so.

Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, 17 Cal. 3d 425, 551 P.2d 334, 131 Cal. Rptr. 14, was a case in which the Supreme Court of California held that mental health professionals have a duty to protect individuals who are being threatened with bodily harm by a patient. The original 1974 decision mandated warning the threatened individual, but a 1976 rehearing of the case by the California Supreme Court called for a "duty to protect" the intended victim. The professional may discharge the duty in several ways, including notifying police, warning the intended victim, and/or taking other reasonable steps to protect the threatened individual.

Some jurisdictions may commit certain types of dangerous sex offenders to state-run detention facilities following the completion of their sentence if that person has a "mental abnormality" or personality disorder that makes the person likely to engage in sexual offenses if not confined in a secure facility. In the United States, twenty states, the federal government, and the District of Columbia have a version of these commitment laws, which are referred to as "Sexually Violent Predator" (SVP) or "Sexually Dangerous Persons" laws.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emergency psychiatry</span> Clinical application of psychiatry in emergency settings

Emergency psychiatry is the clinical application of psychiatry in emergency settings. Conditions requiring psychiatric interventions may include attempted suicide, substance abuse, depression, psychosis, violence or other rapid changes in behavior.

Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.

In the English law of homicide, manslaughter is a less serious offence than murder, the differential being between levels of fault based on the mens rea or by reason of a partial defence. In England and Wales, a common practice is to prefer a charge of murder, with the judge or defence able to introduce manslaughter as an option. The jury then decides whether the defendant is guilty or not guilty of either murder or manslaughter. On conviction for manslaughter, sentencing is at the judge's discretion, whereas a sentence of life imprisonment is mandatory on conviction for murder. Manslaughter may be either voluntary or involuntary, depending on whether the accused has the required mens rea for murder.

Kendra's Law, effective since November 1999, is a New York State law concerning involuntary outpatient commitment also known as assisted outpatient treatment. It grants judges the authority to issue orders that require people who meet certain criteria to regularly undergo psychiatric treatment. Failure to comply could result in commitment for up to 72 hours. Kendra's Law does not mandate that patients be forced to take medication.

Homicidal ideation is a common medical term for thoughts about homicide. There is a range of homicidal thoughts which spans from vague ideas of revenge to detailed and fully formulated plans without the act itself. Most people who have homicidal ideation do not commit homicide. 50–91% of people surveyed on university grounds in various places in the United States admit to having had a homicidal fantasy. Homicidal ideation is common, accounting for 10–17% of patient presentations to psychiatric facilities in the United States.

<i>Jablonski by Pahls v. United States</i>

Jablonski by Pahls v. United States, 712 F.2d 391 is a landmark case in which the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a mental health professional's duty to predict dangerousness includes consulting a patient's prior records, and that their duty to protect includes the involuntary commitment of a dangerous individual; simply warning the foreseeable victim is insufficient.

<i>Ewing v. Goldstein</i>

Ewing v. Goldstein15 Cal. Rptr. 3d 864 is a landmark court case that extended California mental health professional's duty to protect identifiable victims of potentially violent persons, as established by Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, to include acting upon communications from third parties that indicate a possible threat.

The obligatory dangerousness criterion is a principle present in the mental health law of many developed countries. It mandates evidence of dangerousness to oneself or to others before involuntary treatment for mental illness. The term "dangerousness" refers to one's ability to hurt oneself or others physically or mentally within an imminent time frame, and the harm caused must have a long-term effect on the person(s).

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to the psychiatric survivors movement:

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to psychiatry:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health tribunal</span> Tribunal hearing for mental health treatment disputes

A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment and detention, primarily by conducting independent reviews of patients diagnosed with mental disorders who are detained in psychiatric hospitals, or under outpatient commitment, and who may be subject to involuntary treatment.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily.

References

  1. "The Universal Declaration of Ethical Principles for Psychologists Presented at the United Nations DPI/NGO Conference in Paris". www.apa.org. Archived from the original on 21 June 2022. Retrieved 14 March 2023.
  2. Corey, Gerald Corey; Corey, Marianne Schneider; Callahan, Patrick (2007). Issues and Ethics in the Helping Professions (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole/Thomson Learning. ISBN   978-0-534-61443-0. OCLC   65465556.
  3. Gilbert, Flora; Daffern, Michael (2017). "Aggressive scripts, violent fantasy and violent behavior: A conceptual clarification and review". Aggression and Violent Behavior. 36: 98–107. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2017.05.001. ISSN   1359-1789.
  4. Simon, Robert I. (2001). Concise Guide to Psychiatry and the Law for Clinicians . Concise guides (3rd ed.). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. ISBN   978-1-58562-024-1. OCLC   45202323.
  5. 1 2 Weinstock, Robert; Vari, Gabor; Leong, Gregory B.; Silva, J. Arturo (December 2006). "Back to the Past in California: A Temporary Retreat to a Tarasoff Duty to Warn". Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law. 34 (4): 523–528. PMID   17185483 . Retrieved 8 January 2008.
  6. LORD JUSTICE THORPE
    LORD JUSTICE RIMER
    and
    DAME JANET SMITH, Selwood v Durham County Council & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 979 (18th July 2012) , retrieved 23 November 2020
  7. Channel Duty Guidance: Protecting people vulnerable to being drawn into terrorism (PDF). UK Government. 2020.
  8. "PREVENT will have a chilling effect on open debate, free speech and". The Independent. 10 July 2015. Retrieved 27 August 2021.
  9. 1 2 Edwards, Griffin (1 May 2014). "Doing Their Duty: An Empirical Analysis of the Unintended Effect of Tarasoff v. Regents on Homicidal Activity". The Journal of Law and Economics. 57 (2): 321–348. doi:10.1086/675668. ISSN   0022-2186. S2CID   222327211.
  10. Edwards, Griffin (1 June 2013). "Tarasoff, duty to warn laws, and suicide". International Review of Law and Economics. 34: 1–8. doi: 10.1016/j.irle.2012.10.004 . ISSN   0144-8188.
  11. 1 2 3 "The Duty to Warn: A Reconsideration and Critique".