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

More than half of suicide deaths in the United States result from self-inflicted firearm injuries. Extreme risk protection order (ERPO) laws in 21 states and the District of Columbia temporarily limit access to firearms for individuals found in a civil court process to pose an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others. Research with large multistate study populations has been lacking to determine effectiveness of these laws. This study assembled records pertaining to 4,583 ERPO respondents in California, Connecticut, Maryland, and Washington. Matched records identified suicide decedents and self-injury method. Researchers applied case fatality rates for each suicide method to estimate nonfatal suicide attempts corresponding to observed deaths. Comparison of counterfactual to observed data patterns yielded estimates of the number of lives saved and number of ERPOs needed to avert one suicide. Estimates varied depending on the assumed probability that a gun owner who attempts suicide will use a gun. Two evidence-based approaches yielded estimates of 17 and 23 ERPOs needed to prevent one suicide. For the subset of 2,850 ERPO respondents with documented suicide concern, comparable estimates were 13 and 18, respectively. This study's findings add to growing evidence that ERPOs can be an effective and important suicide prevention tool.

Evaluating decisional capacity for patients seeking medical aid in dying (MAID) raises challenging legal, logistical, and ethics questions. The existing literature on the subject has been shaped largely by early disagreements over whether effective capacity assessment for such patients is ever possible, which in turn stemmed from debates over the ethics of MAID itself. In attempting to establish meaningful criteria for assessments, many jurisdictions have sought either to apply or to adapt models of capacity evaluation designed for other forms of medical decision-making, such as the widely used "four skills" model, failing to account for the fundamental differences in kind between these other decisions and MAID. This article seeks to reexamine these questions with a focus on two logistical matters (the appropriate credentialing for the evaluator and the potential liability of the evaluator) and three clinical matters (level of understanding, clinical scrutiny and certainty, and impairment) in an effort to raise legal and ethics concerns that remain unresolved, even as MAID is permitted in an increasing number of jurisdictions.

Involuntary commitment (IC) for the treatment of substance use disorders is a highly controversial and poorly understood practice, with California offering a striking example. The state's involuntary commitment laws, known collectively as Lanterman-Petris-Short, authorized IC for grave disability related to chronic alcoholism. These provisions remain shrouded in obscurity, and data on their usage are lacking. Amid the ongoing debate over the utility of IC as a tool to treat severe substance use disorders and legislation expanding IC for substance use disorders (SUDs) in California and other states, this article highlights the need to better study the use and effectiveness of existing legislation as well as to consider upstream interventions, such as expansion of community-based treatment models.

In recent years, several jurisdictions have passed legislation to permit medical aid in dying (MAID) worldwide, with considerable expansion in the availability of this practice. MAID has been defined as the practice of a clinician prescribing lethal drugs in response to a direct request from the patient, with a shared understanding that the patient intends to use the medication to bring about the patient's death. Wider legalization of MAID has prompted debates and legal controversies regarding the extent to which MAID should be available and its application for people experiencing mental illness as the primary indication. This article examines shifting attitudes of professional medical organizations toward MAID. We discuss the existing statutory provisions for psychiatric assessment for MAID in the United States and the implications on such assessments should MAID be expanded to include mental illness as the primary indication. This article also assesses legal disputes concerning MAID regulations and explores the role of psychiatric experts in the practice of MAID.

Forensic psychiatry fellowship programs recruit applicants through a nonstandardized process that differs by program. Although there are deadlines, informal guidance, and more recent communication guidelines, perceived differences in recruitment practices persist between geographic regions, small and large programs, and newer and more well-established programs. In the wake of a survey of fellowship applicants that found mixed opinions surrounding the application process, U.S. forensic fellowship directors undertook a mixed method quantitative-qualitative survey of their colleagues to assess interest in a match as a potential improvement and factors influencing that interest (e.g., program size, age, and unfilled positions). With responses from all 46 active U.S. programs, results indicated broad support for principles of fairness, transparency, and minimizing pressure on applicants, with an almost perfectly divided interest in a match. Respondents supported the use of a centralized database to standardize the application process and favored certain exceptions for internal applicants. Hypotheses about the reasons underlying program directors' attitudes toward a match did not yield significant results, with only the size of a program approaching significance. This novel comprehensive survey of forensic fellowship directors offers a model for assessing and monitoring the evolution of application processes for medical subspecialties interested in expanding and improving their recruitment.

In recent decades, there has been increasing biomedical and public understanding of the role of autoimmunity in neuropsychiatric illness. Popular media have highlighted patients with psychiatric illnesses who were eventually diagnosed with autoimmune neuropsychiatric illnesses such as anti- N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis. Coverage of these cases has often drawn attention to the effects of misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of such diseases in psychiatric patients. Autoimmune encephalitis can have varied presentations and often involves evaluation and management from multiple medical specialties. As a result, there remains considerable uncertainty regarding how courts might gauge the legal standard of care with regard to psychiatric workup of new-onset psychiatric symptoms, and the degree to which autoimmune encephalitis must be considered. In this article we provide a brief overview of autoimmune encephalitis and autoimmune psychosis, including current diagnostic approaches to these conditions. We review case law regarding the standard of care for psychiatric disorders caused by general medical conditions. Finally, we provide a medicolegal perspective on the responsibilities of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals in the evaluation of possible autoimmune encephalitis.

The Criminal Sentiments Scale-Modified (CSS-M) has been widely used as a measure of criminal attitudes. This analysis examined CSS-M scores in a large sample of outpatients with serious mental illnesses and a criminal legal system history. We compared total and subscale scores in our sample to scores from two other previously published U.S. studies in which the CSS-M was used, and evaluated associations between total CSS-M score and nine variables (age, educational attainment, gender, race, marital status, employment status, diagnostic category, substance use disorder comorbidity, and adverse childhood experiences (ACE) score). Scores were higher than in two prior U.S. studies involving other types of samples. Independently significant predictors of higher CSS-M scores included being younger (P < .001), having a higher ACE score (P < .001), being male (P = 03), not identifying as White (P < 001), not having a psychotic disorder (P < 001), and having a comorbid substance use disorder (P = 002). Future research should test the hypothesis that these factors increase risk for arrest and that arrest events, and subsequent criminal legal system involvement, are characterized by negative experiences and perceptions of poor procedural justice, which in turn underpin the negative opinions referred to as "criminal sentiments" or criminal attitudes.