Obligatory Dangerousness Criterion

Last updated

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. [1] The term "dangerousness" refers to one's ability to hurt oneself or others physically or mentally within an imminent time frame, [2] and the harm caused must have a long-term effect on the person(s). [3]

Contents

Psychiatric hospitals and involuntary commitment have been around for hundreds and even thousands of years around the world, but the obligatory dangerousness criterion was created in the United States in the 1900s. [2] [4] The criterion is a controversial topic, with opponents claiming that it is unethical and potentially harmful. [5] [6] Supporters claim that the criterion is necessary to protect the mentally ill and those impacted by their involuntary treatment. [4]

Background

If a court determines that a person may cause long-term harm to themselves or others, then the person can be hospitalized or be required to outpatient treatment and treated involuntarily. [2] [3] [4] In order to be released, the court must determine whether the person is no longer dangerous. [3] The length of time that a person is involuntarily hospitalized varies and is determined by the state. [7]  

An obligatory dangerousness criterion has two main parts. First is the Latin phrase parens patriae , which translates to "parent of his or her nation", [8] which "assigns to the government a responsibility to intervene on behalf of citizens who cannot act in their own best interest". [2] The second part "requires a state to protect the interests of its citizens", meaning that the government must do what it can to care for greater society, which may involve limiting one individual's rights to avoid harming the greater society. [2]

History

Founded in 1816 in Manhattan, New York, Bloomingdale Insane Asylum was one of the earlier psychiatric hospitals established in the United States. Bloomingdale Insane Asylum, Manhattanville, New York.jpg
Founded in 1816 in Manhattan, New York, Bloomingdale Insane Asylum was one of the earlier psychiatric hospitals established in the United States.

Psychiatric asylums and guardianship over the mentally ill have been present for centuries. In Greece, individuals, such as Hippocrates, believed that those with mental illnesses should be separated from others and maintained within a safe, healthy environment. Ancient Rome allowed guardianship over mentally ill individuals. [4] In the US, psychiatric hospitals were not established until the late 18th and early 19th centuries. Before their establishment, individuals suffering with mental illnesses were imprisoned or kept from society. [2] After their establishment, anyone could be admitted to a psychiatric hospital if a family member brought them and a physician agreed to provide a treatment. Individuals could be at the hospital indefinitely until a court ruled they could be released. [4]

An obligatory dangerousness criterion was officially established in the United States in 1964 by the Ervin Act in Washington, D.C. [4] It provided a more lenient interpretation of "dangerousness" as well as alternatives to involuntary hospitalization. It is meant to protect individuals with mental health disorders on the basis of parens patria. In order to be involuntary hospitalized under the obligatory dangerousness criterion, one must have a mental illness, and most states also require that the individual is in need of medical treatment for the illness. [4]

In 1964, Washington, D.C., established that an individual may only be involuntarily hospitalized if the individual has a mental illness, may be threat to others or their self in the near future, or is unable to survive on their own. [2] States followed suit and began implementing a dangerousness criteria, as well. [2] In the 1975 Supreme Court case O'Connor v. Donaldson , the Supreme Court ruled that the individual must have a mental illness, pose a known threat to the safety of their self or others, be unable to care for themselves, or need psychiatric care. [2] States adjusted their rules so that a patient's involuntary hospitalization would be re-evaluated over the span of a short period of time, ranging from two days to two weeks before a patient could have a court hearing to potentially be released. [2]

Controversy

The obligatory dangerousness criterion is controversial. Supporters claim that the criterion is necessary in order to ensure that those who are in vital need of psychiatric care will receive it, and to prevent the mentally ill individual from potentially harming themselves or others. [4] They also note that mental health disorders can impair one's judgement, for example, if an individual with depression does not think that they need help. They argue that psychiatric care often involves some form of hospitalization or treatment, and as a result, "involuntary hospitalization, or civil commitment, has been a mainstay of psychiatric care" since the field first began. [2] Some individuals who have been involuntarily hospitalized perceived their experience to be beneficial and fair. [10] Lastly, they also note how many states require that the least invasive measures be taken before involuntary hospitalization is considered. [4]

Its opponents claim that an obligatory dangerousness criterion is unethical. Some believe it denies the individual of consent, is discriminatory based on mental health, [5] and may increase the patient's risk of suicide, psychotic symptoms, or other harmful behaviors. [6] [11] They worry an obligatory dangerousness criterion might lead individuals without a serious mental illness to be involuntarily hospitalized, or that individuals without a serious mental illness will be involuntarily hospitalized as a "preventative" means. [4] Those who oppose an obligatory dangerousness criterion also argue that there are less restrictive alternatives to involuntary hospitalization that can help those with a mental illness. [12] [13]

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 agent 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.

A mental disorder, also referred to as a mental illness or psychiatric disorder, is a behavioral or mental pattern that causes significant distress or impairment of personal functioning. Such features may be persistent, relapsing and remitting, or occur as single episodes. Many disorders have been described, with signs and symptoms that vary widely between specific disorders. Such disorders may be diagnosed by a mental health professional, usually a clinical psychologist or psychiatrist.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychiatric hospital</span> Hospital specializing in the treatment of serious mental disorders

Psychiatric hospitals, also known as mental health hospitals,behavioral health hospitals, are hospitals or wards specializing in the treatment of severe mental disorders, such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, eating disorders, dissociative identity disorder, major depressive disorder and many others. Psychiatric hospitals vary widely in their size and grading. Some hospitals may specialize only in short-term or outpatient therapy for low-risk patients. Others may specialize in the temporary or permanent containment of patients who need routine assistance, treatment, or a specialized and controlled environment due to a psychiatric disorder. Patients often choose voluntary commitment, but those whom psychiatrists believe to pose significant danger to themselves or others may be subject to involuntary commitment and involuntary treatment. Psychiatric hospitals may also be called psychiatric wards/units when they are a subunit of a regular hospital.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Anti-psychiatry</span> Movement against psychiatric treatment

Anti-psychiatry 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. Historically critiques of psychiatry came to light after focus on the extreme harms associated with electroconvulsive treatment or insulin shock therapy. The term "anti-psychiatry" is in dispute and often used to dismiss all critics of psychiatry, many of who 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.

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act regulates involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the state of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. The bipartisan bill was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank D. Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

Laura's Law is a California state law that allows for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment. To qualify for the program, the person must have a serious mental illness plus a recent history of psychiatric hospitalizations, jailings or acts, threats or attempts of serious violent behavior towards self or others. A complete functional outline of the legal procedures and safeguards within Laura's Law has been prepared by NAMI San Mateo.

<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. Psychiatric emergency services are rendered by professionals in the fields of medicine, nursing, psychology and social work. The demand for emergency psychiatric services has rapidly increased throughout the world since the 1960s, especially in urban areas. Care for patients in situations involving emergency psychiatry is complex.

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.

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.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deinstitutionalisation</span> Replacement of psychiatric hospitals

Deinstitutionalisation is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability. In the late 20th century, it led to the closure of many psychiatric hospitals, as patients were increasingly cared for at home, in halfway houses and clinics, in regular hospitals, or not at all.

Psychiatry is the medical specialty devoted to the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of mental conditions. These include various issues related to mood, behaviour, cognition, and perceptions.

Political abuse of psychiatry, also commonly referred to as punitive psychiatry, is the misuse of psychiatry, including diagnosis, detention, and treatment, for the purposes of obstructing the human rights of individuals and/or groups in a society. In other words, abuse of psychiatry is the deliberate action of having citizens psychiatrically diagnosed who need neither psychiatric restraint nor psychiatric treatment. Psychiatrists have been involved in human rights abuses in states across the world when the definitions of mental disease were expanded to include political disobedience. As scholars have long argued, governmental and medical institutions code menaces to authority as mental diseases during political disturbances. Nowadays, in many countries, political prisoners are sometimes confined and abused in psychiatric hospitals.

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

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health in Russia</span>

Mental health in Russia is covered by a law, known under its official name—the Law of the Russian Federation "On Psychiatric Care and Guarantees of Citizens' Rights during Its Provision", which is the basic legal act that regulates psychiatric care in the Russian Federation and applies not only to persons with mental disorders but all citizens. A notable exception of this rule is those vested with parliamentary or judicial immunity. Providing psychiatric care is regulated by a special law regarding guarantees of citizens' rights.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital (inpatient) or in the community (outpatient).

Mentally ill people are overrepresented in United States jail and prison populations relative to the general population. There are three times more seriously mentally ill persons in jails and prisons than in hospitals in the United States. Scholars discuss many different causes of this overrepresentation including the deinstitutionalization of mentally ill individuals in the mid-twentieth century; inadequate community mental health treatment resources; and the criminalization of mental illness itself. The majority of prisons in the United States employ a psychiatrist and a psychologist. There is a general consensus that mentally ill offenders have comparable rates of recidivism to non-mentally ill offenders. Mentally ill people experience solitary confinement at disproportionate rates and are more vulnerable to its adverse psychological effects. Twenty-five states have laws addressing the emergency detention of the mentally ill within jails, and the United States Supreme Court has upheld the right of inmates to mental health treatment.

The United States has experienced two waves of deinstitutionalization, the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability.

Serious mental illness or severe mental illness (SMI) is characterized as any mental health condition that seriously impairs anywhere from one to several significant life activities including day to day functioning. Common diagnoses associated with SMI include bipolar disorder, psychotic disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, and major depressive disorder. People experiencing SMI experience symptoms that can prevent them from having successful experiences that contribute to a good quality of life, due to social, physical, and psychological limitations of their illnesses. In 2017, there was a 4.5% prevalence rate of U.S. adults diagnosed with SMI, the highest percentage being the young adult population. In 2017, 66.7% of the 4.5% diagnosed adults sought out mental health care services.

In the context of a doctor–patient relationship, Informal coercion is a social process where a healthcare profession tries to make a patient adhere to the healthcare system's desired treatment without making use of formal coercion such as involuntary commitment combined with involuntary treatment. An example of involuntary treatment in mental health care is intramuscular injection with the antipsychotic haloperidol.

References

  1. Dressing, H; Salize, HJ (October 2004). "Compulsory admission of mentally ill patients in European Union Member States". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 39 (10): 797–803. doi:10.1007/s00127-004-0814-9. PMID   15669660. S2CID   27770614.
  2. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Testa, Megan; West, Sara G. (2010-10-07). "Civil Commitment in the United States". Psychiatry (Edgmont). 7 (10): 30–40. ISSN   1550-5952. PMC   3392176 . PMID   22778709.
  3. 1 2 3 Baker, Estella (1993). "Dangerousness, Rights and Criminal Justice". The Modern Law Review. 56 (4): 528–547. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-2230.1993.tb01883.x . ISSN   1468-2230.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration: Civil Commitment and the Mental Health Care Continuum: Historical Trends and Principles for Law and Practice. Rockville, MD: Office of the Chief Medical Officer: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. 2019. pp. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9. https://www.samhsa.gov/sites/default/files/civil-commitment-continuum-of-care.pdf
  5. 1 2 Large, M. M.; Ryan, C. J.; Nielssen, O. B.; Hayes, R. A. (2008-12-01). "The danger of dangerousness: why we must remove the dangerousness criterion from our mental health acts". Journal of Medical Ethics. 34 (12): 877–881. doi:10.1136/jme.2008.025098. ISSN   0306-6800. PMID   19043114. S2CID   12802199.
  6. 1 2 Large, Matthew M.; Nielssen, Olav B.; Lackersteen, Steven M. (2009-08-01). "Did the introduction of 'dangerousness' and 'risk of harm' criteria in mental health laws increase the incidence of suicide in the United States of America?". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 44 (8): 614–621. doi:10.1007/s00127-008-0488-9. ISSN   1433-9285. PMID   19099169. S2CID   189938803.
  7. "Involuntary Commitment". NCHA. Retrieved 2020-10-15.
  8. "parens patriae". LII / Legal Information Institute. Retrieved 2020-11-03.
  9. "History of Psychiatric Hospitals". www.nursing.upenn.edu. Retrieved 2020-10-19.
  10. Swartz, Marvin S.; Wagner, H. Ryan; Swanson, Jeffrey W.; Elbogen, Eric B. (July 2004). "Consumers' perceptions of the fairness and effectiveness of mandated community treatment and related pressures". Psychiatric Services. 55 (7): 780–785. doi:10.1176/appi.ps.55.7.780. ISSN   1075-2730. PMID   15232017.
  11. Kaltiala-Heino, Riittakerttu (2010-08-01). "Involuntary commitment and detainment in adolescent psychiatric inpatient care". Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 45 (8): 785–793. doi:10.1007/s00127-009-0116-3. ISSN   1433-9285. PMID   19690788. S2CID   33128142.
  12. King, Robert; Robinson, Jacqueline (2011-01-01). "Obligatory dangerousness criteria in the involuntary commitment and treatment provisions of Australian mental health legislation". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry. 34 (1): 64–70. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2010.11.010. ISSN   0160-2527. PMID   21112634.
  13. SWANSON, JEFFREY W.; SWARTZ, MARVIN S.; ELBOGEN, ERIC B.; VAN DORN, RICHARD A.; WAGNER, H. RYAN; MOSER, LORNA A.; WILDER, CHRISTINE; GILBERT, ALLISON R. (2008-01-01). "Psychiatric advance directives and reduction of coercive crisis interventions". Journal of Mental Health (Abingdon, England). 17 (3): 255–267. doi:10.1080/09638230802052195. ISSN   0963-8237. PMC   2835342 . PMID   20221301.