Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law最新文献

Preliminary research shows the psychedelic psilocybin to be a promising potential treatment for psychiatric illnesses. Recent U.S. government legislation and policy indicate that access to psilocybin, which remains illegal on the federal level despite increasing efforts to decriminalize it at the state and local levels, will be expanded to enable further research into its treatment potential. It remains unclear how psilocybin will be regulated and who will have access to this new treatment, raising important legal and ethics questions psychiatrists must consider. This article reviews the current legal regulation of psilocybin and matters related to standard of care, right to effective treatment, and the respectable minority doctrine. It concludes with a discussion of the ethics matters surrounding the use of psilocybin as medicine, including provider bias, the interpersonal dynamic between providers and patients, informed consent, and equity and access.

In 1991, Canada introduced Bill C-30 to amend the Criminal Code (mental disorder). Bill C-30 codified accumulated law specifying the criteria for fitness to stand trial. This test was clarified in a landmark case, R v. Taylor, which appeared to accept the limited cognitive capacity test. This explanation has guided the assessment of fitness to stand trial in courts across Canada for three decades. It was recently tested in an Ontario Court of Appeal case, R v. Bharwani, which ruled that the common interpretation of Taylor was insufficient. The court ruled there is one test for fitness, which is contextual and nuanced, and this test is spelled out in the Criminal Code. This will likely change the test and manner for assessing fitness to stand trial in Canada from how it has evolved over the last three decades.

Asylum seekers in the United States face complex legal processes that require the construction of coherent and credible narratives to establish eligibility for legal status or immigration relief. In this article, we review clinical and legal considerations involved in optimizing trauma narratives in forensic psychiatric evaluations for immigration courts. We highlight significant challenges faced by asylum seekers, including the emotional impact of trauma and cultural factors affecting their ability to disclose their experiences, including the roles of symptoms and cultural and situational elements in disclosure and narrative development. We emphasize the importance of creating a therapeutic and empathetic environment to facilitate disclosure and partnering with interpreters across multiple culturally sensitive evaluations. We address the roles of common traumatic stressors in narrative development, including cultural challenges related to histories of torture, abduction, sexual violence, and human trafficking prevalent among asylum seekers, providing insights and guidance on each. Further, we address specific potential challenges to the forensic psychiatric evaluator during the narrative development process, such as transference, countertransference, malingering, and vicarious traumatization. We aim to provide guidance on the development of trauma narratives of asylees developed for both therapeutic and medico-legal effectiveness.

Since the 1980s, the four skills criteria have become the most widely accepted mechanism for the assessment of decisional capacity in the United States. These criteria emerged in response to the paternalistic approach to clinical decision-making that had been widely accepted in an earlier era and offered a means of ensuring that physicians honored the rights of capacitated patients to make their own medical decisions. Unfortunately, the criteria are now applied to situations for which they are not suited and in a manner that is often highly inflexible. In an article in this issue of The Journal, Matthew Dernbach and colleagues describe one potential scenario that requires a flexible approach to using the four skills model: situations in which a patient stands at high risk of losing decisional capacity in the near future. Using Dernbach et al. as a starting point, this article offers specific ways in which the four skills model can be improved upon or augmented without abandoning its key principles. These advances include adjusting to empirical evidence, re-emphasizing the importance of autonomy maximization and restorability, and embracing novel conceptual and technological innovations.

Numerous recommendations have been made to address the high rates of mental health disorders among justice-involved youth. Few data are available on the use, quality, appropriateness, or availability of services to address these needs. This study examined the relationship between trauma-informed mental health screening, other referral pathways for diagnostic evaluation, subsequent DSM-5 diagnoses, and treatments for evaluated youth. Eligible participants were all youth admitted to New York City secure juvenile detention facilities from September 17, 2015 to October 30, 2016 who remained in the facility for at least five days (N = 786). Of those, 581 (73.9%) were voluntarily screened and 309 (53.2%) later received a diagnostic evaluation. Youth who screened positive for depression, posttraumatic stress disorder, and problematic substance use were more likely to be evaluated. Treatment received was related to diagnosis rather than reason for referral. For youth who were referred for behavioral or emotional concerns, 99.1 percent (114 of 115) of those diagnosed with a neurodevelopmental disorder had attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). These data are among the first to describe DSM-5 diagnoses and treatment among youth detainees. They highlight the prevalence of ADHD in detained youth and argue for the coordination of universal trauma-informed mental health screening and a structured referral system for this population.

The four-skills model of decisional capacity for providing informed consent for medical treatment developed by Appelbaum and Grisso is codified into most state statutes in articulating the legal criteria for establishing capacity. Decisional capacity is traditionally determined at a point in time based on a narrow clinical question; however, there are clinical scenarios in which patients may currently have decisional capacity but their recurrent nonadherence to care places them at foreseeable risk of being acutely incapacitated, both decisionally and functionally, in the near future. There is a gap in terms of how these four skills ought to be adapted when applied to a patient with recurrent altered mental status, especially delirium, because of nonadherence. To describe this clinical situation, we introduce a new risk factor, "foreseeable risk of losing decisional and functional capacity," and discuss the clinical evaluation of a patient who currently has capacity but for whom this risk factor applies. We consider the implications of being at foreseeable risk of losing capacity and how foreseeable risk can be translated into a capacity determination in the present. We also describe interventions that can serve to protect the patient's rights and safety.

Concerns about sexual misconduct by health care professionals have been highlighted by recent high-profile cases. Professional health monitoring programs (PHPs) offer an additional layer of protection when health care professionals with a history of unprofessional sexual behavior (USB) return to practice; however, little is known about the characteristics or outcomes of clinicians referred to a PHP because of USB. Data were extracted from over 35 years of PHP records involving USB-related referrals (N = 570). The majority of cases were deemed ineligible for PHP monitoring and handled by other entities (e.g., licensing board, legal system). Of the 232 monitored cases (46.84 ± 9.42 years; 95.7% male), most were physicians (n = 156, 67.2%), with 75.9 percent of monitored cases involving USB with at least one patient. Most (74.9%) PHP monitoring outcomes were classified as "successful" or "very successful." Only three individuals (1.3%) who completed their monitoring were rereferred to the PHP. Monitored professionals exhibited less severe USB and were less likely to experience legal or disciplinary consequences (57.3% versus 69.8%, Cramer's V = .174, p < .0001) compared with unmonitored professionals. Findings enhance transparency of the PHP process and highlight its utility in safely returning clinicians to practice. Results may inform policies to prevent USB by health care professionals.

Opioid use disorder is common in incarcerated persons, and concern about the diversion of buprenorphine is a barrier to treatment. We conducted a retrospective chart review of incarcerated persons in the New Jersey Department of Corrections who received charges for misuse of medication, including buprenorphine, hypothesizing that the prescription of buprenorphine monoproduct, multiple tabs or films of buprenorphine, or higher doses of buprenorphine would be associated with more diversion incidents. Within the dosing range of 2 to 12 mg, there were more incidents of diversion of buprenorphine monoproduct (24.3%) compared with buprenorphine-naloxone (10.7%, p = .004). More incidents of diversion were seen when multiple films or tabs of buprenorphine product were prescribed (21.7%, comparison 12.7%, p = .01). This observation held when considering multiple buprenorphine-naloxone films, but not multiple buprenorphine tablets. No statistically significant association was found for institutional diversion charges related to higher doses of buprenorphine products. These results suggest that, within the dosing range of buprenorphine used in the New Jersey Department of Corrections, misuse charges were not associated with higher doses although were associated with prescribing buprenorphine monoproduct and multiple films of buprenorphine-naloxone.

The rise in the U.S. prison population over the past 40 years has heightened scrutiny of the incarceration of children and adolescents. Correlates of later reincarceration in this group, especially correlates relating to psychiatric and substance use disorders, are understudied in the U.S. population. We aimed to establish the prevalence and correlates of the reincarceration as adults of people incarcerated before age 18. Data were derived from clinical interviews and from validated diagnostic and psychometric instruments. They were obtained as part of a cross-sectional representative survey of the civilian U.S. population, the National Epidemiological Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC-III). We identified 1,543 adults (4.3% of the NESARC sample) who had been incarcerated before they were 18. Of these, 55.9 percent had subsequently been incarcerated as adults. In addition to variables that have been repeatedly identified in criminological research (less education, past antisocial behavior, and parental imprisonment), substance use disorder, bipolar disorder, and longer childhood incarceration were independently associated with incarceration as an adult. The possibility that psychiatric treatment could reduce reincarceration in this group warrants longitudinal and experimental research.

The goal of our study was to describe the availability of community child and adolescent mental health services, trauma-informed care, and the geographic accessibility of these services for juvenile justice-involved (JJ) youth who received mental health services while in secure detention. Data collection occurred through direct contact with the child and adolescent outpatient clinics listed on the New York State Office of Mental Health website. Zip codes were collected from the juvenile secure detention census. Of the clinics contacted, 88.5 percent accepted JJ youth; however, 43.5 percent accepted them on a conditional basis. Only 62.1 percent offered trauma-informed care, including evidence-based interventions and unspecified care. Although 84.5 percent of the clinics that would accept this population reported currently accepting new patients, reported wait times were as high as six or more months. When JJ residents' home zip codes and those of the clinics were geographically mapped, there were few clinics in the zip codes where most residents lived. The clinics that accepted youth on a conditional basis often refused high-risk patients, essentially ruling out a large majority of this population. The geographical inaccessibility of these clinics limits their ability to provide care for this vulnerable population.