Unfitness for Detention Among Arrestees with Suspected Mental Disorders in Paris,France

In this retrospective study (11/2013–04/2014), we aimed to identify the factors associated with psychiatric hospitalization among detainees in police custody. We included 137 patients (M/F, 74%/26%; median age, 37 years), and 125 (91%) had a mental disorder. Seventy‐seven patients (56%) had involuntary hospitalization. Sixty patients (44%) were declared fit for detention, and 48 (80%) of these patients had a mental disorder. All patients who required urgent psychiatric care and could not provide valid consent for care were declared as requiring involuntary hospitalization. Forty‐nine of the 62 patients (79%) who required urgent psychiatric care and were suspected to have committed serious crimes were involuntarily admitted. In conclusion, we commonly found that some individuals with mental disorders were considered fit for detention in police cells.     

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Mental Health Law

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) took effect in 2008. This paper discusses a number of flashpoints where the CRPD will require real and significant reconsideration of English mental health and mental capacity law. The CRPD introduces a new paradigm into international disability law, relying on the social model of disability. While that is no doubt a good thing, there is as yet no clear sense as to how that is to be implemented. After providing an introduction to the Convention, the paper considers four specific areas: mental capacity law (focussing on the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005), psychiatric treatment without consent, civil detention of people with mental disabilities, and mental disability in the criminal system (fitness to plead, insanity and diminished responsibility).     

Decisional Capacity to Consent to Clinical Research Involving Placebo in Psychiatric Patients

Evidence from a few studies indicates the existence of several issues related to psychiatric patients' decisional capacity to give informed consent to clinical research. Clinicians often face difficulties in acquiring valid informed consent in clinical practice and even more so in drug trials. Participants often fail to fully understand or retain information regarding the actual implications of research protocols. The Brief Assessment for Consent to Clinical Research (BACO) was developed to investigate capacity to consent to clinical trials and further compare patients with schizophrenia and healthy comparisons' decisional capacity. A method to avoid possible confounding effects of choosing a treatment regarding a current disease was applied. The study groups were administered the BACO and the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Clinical Research. Psychiatric patients performed poorer in comprehending, appreciating, and reasoning abilities, than their healthy counterparts. Impaired cognitive functioning and psychiatric symptoms severity were associated with reduced capacity to consent.     

Operation of guardianship laws in the emergency ward

Enduring and workable legislative schemes typically include (a) a balanced approach to the rights and duties of all parties under their purview; and (b) consideration of all major consequences that may flow from the codification of underpinning doctrines. This column examines the 1999 amendments to the Guardianship and Administration Act 1986 (Vic) regulating patients' consent to medical treatment focusing on their application in modern emergency departments. The legislation needs to reconcile the human rights principle that humane and appropriate treatment is a fundamental right of all those who suffer from ill health and disease, with the principle that all patients (including those with impaired, but not totally absent, decisional capacity) have an absolute right to refuse life-saving treatment. Consent and refusal of treatment provisions should be based on the notion of reasonableness, including recognition that the mental and emotional states experienced by physically ill people may, in the short-term, adversely affect their decision-making capacity. Unless the consent legislation factors in the realities of modern emergency practice and resources, statutory thresholds for decisional competence, instead of affording protection, may result in much worse outcomes for vulnerable patients.     

Mental health legislation and human rights in England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland

In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation (Geneva: WHO) presenting a detailed statement of human rights issues which need to be addressed in national legislation relating to mental health. The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent to which revised mental health legislation in England, Wales (2007) and Ireland (2001) accords with these standards (excluding standards relating solely to children or mentally-ill offenders).Legislation in England and Wales meets 90 (54.2%) of the 166 WHO standards examined, while legislation in Ireland meets 80 standards (48.2%). Areas of high compliance include definitions of mental disorder, relatively robust procedures for involuntary admission and treatment (although provision of information remains suboptimal) and clarity regarding offences and penalties Areas of medium compliance relate to competence, capacity and consent (with a particular deficit in capacity legislation in Ireland), oversight and review (which exclude long-term voluntary patients and require more robust complaints procedures), and rules governing special treatments, seclusion and restraint. Areas of low compliance relate to promoting rights (impacting on other areas within legislation, such as information management), voluntary patients (especially non-protesting, incapacitated patients), protection of vulnerable groups and emergency treatment. The greatest single deficit in both jurisdictions relates to economic and social rights.There are four key areas in need of rectification and clarification in relation to mental health legislation in England, Wales and Ireland; these relate to (1) measures to protect and promote the rights of voluntary patients; (2) issues relating to competence, capacity and consent (especially in Ireland); (3) the role of “common law” in relation to mental health law (especially in England and Wales); and (4) the extent to which each jurisdiction wishes to protect the economic and social rights of the mentally ill through mental health legislation rather than general legislation.It is hoped that this preliminary analysis of mental health legislation will prompt deeper national audits of mental health and general law as it relates to the mentally ill, performed by multi-disciplinary committees, as recommended by the WHO.     

Patients' rights to complain in Finnish psychiatric care: An overview

Cuts in resources for Finnish psychiatric care may jeopardize the realization of patients' rights in mental health settings. The right to complain is a basic right of all patients in Finland, and is especially important to patients treated involuntarily and also to those who have experienced coercive treatment methods during their hospitalizations. In Finland, a patient's right to complain is guaranteed by law, both in legislation and in national quality recommendations. The complaint process in Finland is very complex, and there are several ways to make a complaint that are not always familiar to patients with severe illnesses. Psychiatric patients may have cognitive impairments that make the formulation of a complaint difficult. Despite help from the patient ombudsman, unbalanced power structures in psychiatric hospitals, insufficient information and long evaluation of appeals makes the complaint process very demanding for psychiatric patients.     

Functional mental capacity is not independent of the severity of psychosis

BACKGROUND: Function-specific mental capacities are the legal criteria for competence. These are regarded as superior to clinical assessments of mental state and general function. AIMS: To determine whether tests of fitness to plead and capacity to consent are independent of each other and independent of mental state and global function in psychosis. METHOD: The MacCAT-T and MacCAT-FP, PANSS and GAF were administered to 102 compulsorily detained forensic patients with psychosis. Criteria for incompetence were inability to express a preference concerning treatment, and independent rating as unfit to plead. RESULTS: MacCAT-T, MacCAT-FP totals and sub-scales correlated with each other and with PANSS and GAF. Those independently rated unfit to plead or who were incapable of making a treatment choice scored significantly worse on all rating scales. No test had satisfactory sensitivity or specificity. CONCLUSIONS: Legal definitions of mind and of functional capacity offer a basis for structured clinical judgement regarding decision-making capacity. However, function-specific measures of understanding, reasoning and appreciation generate much the same results as measures of mental state and global functioning.     

性自我防卫能力评定量表在非精神发育迟滞精神障碍患者中的适用性

目的探讨性自我防卫能力评定量表在非精神发育迟滞精神障碍患者中的适用性。方法收集性自我防卫能力评定案例87例,由经过培训的人员按照精神障碍者性自我防卫能力评定量表（CapacityofSexualSelf—defenseAssessmentScale,CSSAS）进行评分,并与专家鉴定意见进行比较。结果按照专家鉴定意见分组,有性自我防卫能力组、性自我防卫能力削弱组和无性自我防卫能力组的CSSAS评分分别为5．97±5．83、32．22±10．15、61．60±13．02,3组间的差异具有统计学意义（P〈O．01）。量表各条目得分与总分的相关系数为0．59～0．91,全量表的Cronbachd系数为0．96,拆半信度Cronbach理系数分别为0．94和0．91,两部分的相关系数为0．94。按照原始界值分,量表评定结果与专家鉴定意见的Kappa值为0．32（P〈0．01）,重新划定界值分后．两者的Kappa值为0．84（P〈0．01）。因子分析共提取2个因子,方差解释率分别为46．15％和28．93％,判别函数回代94．30％的样本被正确划分。结论CSSAS可应用于非精神发育迟滞精神障碍患者的性自我防卫能力评定,但应重新修订界值分和因子的权重。     

论《精神卫生法》的自愿原则

为了防止正常人"被精神病",更好地保护精神障碍患者的合法权益,《精神卫生法》确立了自愿原则。该原则渊源于私法领域的自愿原则而又与其不同,是在知情的条件下对精神卫生服务的单方接受自愿。它回应了要像人一样保护精神障碍患者,彰显了精神卫生法的福利法本质。它包涵自愿诊断、自愿治疗和自愿出院三个既相互区别又相互联系子原则。非自愿诊断、非自愿治疗、非自愿继续住院治疗只是自愿原则的补充,此种例外旨在寻求患者精神健康权与社会公众安全保护的平衡。     

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITAL CAPACITY,HOMELESSNESS, AND CRIME AND ARREST RATES*

As a result of developments in pharmacology, stricter standards for involuntary commitment, and changes in public expenditures, there has been a dramatic decline in the capacity of public psychiatric hospitals to maintain America's most severely mentally ill. Psychiatric deinstitutionalization has led to an increased presence of persons with mental illness in urban areas, many “falling through the cracks” of community‐based services. This is hypothesized to have contributed to homelessness, crime, and arrests. Individual‐level research has documented disproportionate and increasing numbers of mentally ill persons in jails and prisons. It has also found higher rates of violence and arrest among persons with mental illness compared to the general population. This study takes a macro‐level social control approach and examines the relationships between psychiatric hospital capacity, homelessness, and crime and arrest rates using a sample of eighty‐one U.S. cities. I find that public psychiatric hospital capacity has a statistically significant negative effect on crime and arrest rates, and that hospital capacity affects crime and arrest rates in part, through its impact on homelessness. In addition, I find no crime‐reducing effect of private and general psychiatric hospital capacity.     

Mental health performance measurement in corrections

Correctional facilities have become, by default, one of the largest providers of mental health care for patients with serious mental illness. In its 2002 Report to Congress, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care has reported that most facilities do not provide quality mental health care, nor do they conform to nationally accepted guidelines for mental health screening and treatment. This article describes the product of a consensus panel of correctional health care experts, charged to develop performance measures, based on nationally accepted standards, for selected elements of psychiatric treatment behind bars, aimed to improve the quality of care. Performance measures were developed for medication adherence, suicide prevention, mental health treatment planning, and sleep medication usage.     

Knocking at the wrong door: insured workers' inadequate psychiatric care and workers' compensation claims

ObjectiveTo describe the prevalence of inadequately evaluated and treated psychopathology among insured workers making workers' compensation claims for psychiatric disability whose cases were reviewed by one forensic psychiatrist. To assess the relationship of inadequate evaluation and treatment to the outcomes of these workers' compensation claims.MethodsRecords of a series of 185 workers' compensation cases reviewed in 1998 and 1999 by a California forensic psychiatrist were abstracted. Patient factors (gender, Axis II pathology, psychosocial circumstances, substance abuse), case factors (psychiatric injury secondary to physical injury, or secondary to psychological stresses), type of provider (mental health, or other), adequacy of evaluation and treatment, forensic psychiatrist's recommendation, and claim outcome were categorized. The relationships between case characteristics, adequacy of care, and claim outcome were described.Results22% of cases had adequate evaluation, 48% superficial, and 30% had no evaluation. 11% had adequate treatment, 67% superficial, and 22% had no treatment. Compared to claims for psychiatric disability related to a physical injury, claims related to psychosocial stresses more often had superficial diagnostic evaluations and treatments. Those with superficial treatment were less likely to have their claim granted (19.3%) than those with no treatment (47.5%) or those with adequate treatment (36.8%). Success of claim was not related to provider type.ConclusionsThe majority of the studied workers with employer-provided health insurance who sought workers' compensation for disability due to mental illness did so inappropriately, in that the workplace did not cause the psychopathology. Their seeking workers' compensation was plausibly due to the observed inadequate evaluation and treatment available through their employer-provided health insurance. The adequacy of their care influenced the likelihood their claim would be granted. The relations observed here merit further research to establish their generality and to determine their causes.     

Severe Mental Illness,Somatic Delusions,and Attempted Mass Murder

A case of an attempted mass shooting at a large psychiatric hospital in the United States by a 30‐year‐old male with severe mental illness, somatic delusions, and exceptional access to healthcare professionals is reported. Six persons were shot, one died at the scene, and the shooter was then killed by the police. Data were gathered from court documents and media accounts. An analysis of the shooter's psychiatric history, his interactions with healthcare professionals, and communications prior to the shooting suggest a rare form of mass murder, a random attack by a documented psychotic and delusional individual suffering with somatic delusions. Despite his being psychotic, the killer planned the attack and made a direct threat 1 month prior to the shootings. This case highlights problems with the healthcare system, indicating that it might be ill equipped to appropriately deal with severe mental illness.     

Competence to give informed consent for medical procedures

This study shows that referrals to psychiatry for evaluation for competence to give informed consent generally were made on patients who refused medical treatment. In this sample of referred patients, the only patients found to be incompetent to give informed consent were those with organic brain syndromes. No one with either schizophrenia or depression was found to be incompetent. It is possible that schizophrenic and depressed patients may generally be competent to give informed consent to medical treatment. This finding might be true notwithstanding the fact that many such patients have been found in other studies to be incompetent to consent to voluntary psychiatric treatment. For example, a patient may have delusions that others can read his mind and thoughts, but he still can understand that he needs dialysis for renal failure. Alternatively, it may be relatively rare that an emergency procedure is necessary before a patient's psychosis can be brought under control and consequently internists and surgeons themselves may prefer to wait. The significance of the results is unclear. Because of active interest in the doctrine of informed consent for psychiatric and medical patients by both physicians and attorneys and the few studies within this population, there is a strong need for more study regarding competence to give informed consent. Further study is especially important for psychotic patients for whom psychiatric consultation is not requested.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)     

When special needs categories for exceptional students overlap mental health diagnoses: The Canadian experience and its Charter implications

This paper explores Canadian 'educational' categorical systems for special needs students and their relation to mental health diagnoses. Parents wishing to access special education services for their children are generally required to consent to their children being formally assessed. Frequently, the school board committee will require a psychological or psychiatric assessment which may lead to diagnosis of a mental health disorder that overlaps with the special needs category to which the child is assigned. This paper explores whether Canadian parents of exceptional students are in fact providing fully informed and voluntary consent given: (a) frequent parental lack of understanding of the overlap between the so-called 'educational' special needs category and a mental health diagnosis; and (b) the power of the school board to proceed with a special education placement based on a particular category even without parental agreement. The argument is made that making special education service eligibility contingent on meeting the criteria for one or more government approved categories of 'disorder' or 'impairments', some of which overlap mental health diagnoses, infringes Canadian Charter s.15 equality rights as well as s.7 liberty and security of the person rights.     

精神病司法鉴定若干法律问题研究

精神病鉴定因涉及精神病医学、心理学、法学以及社会学等诸多领域的专门知识而呈现出复杂性。与其他医学学科相比,精神病医学的发展相对缓慢,在一定程度上制约了精神病鉴定制度的发展,甚至影响了鉴定程序启动的正常展开。精神病鉴定制度的不完善及其程序启动的失当又导致实践中出现精神病鉴定的乱象。从司法鉴定实践中可以发现,精神病鉴定本身的可靠程度以及刑事责任能力的评定与鉴定启动、鉴定结果选择等具有内在的互动性。尽管精神病鉴定制度无力解决精神病医学不发达的根本性问题,但科学的精神病鉴定制度对精神病鉴定技术、鉴定能力与鉴定质量的提高有较大的助益。     

EXTENDING SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION THEORY: A MULTILEVEL APPROACH TO THE STUDY OF VIOLENCE AMONG PERSONS WITH MENTAL ILLNESSES*

Prior studies of violence among individuals with mental illnesses have focused almost exclusively on individual‐level characteristics. In this study, I examine whether the structural correlates of neighborhood social disorganization also explain variation in violence. I use data on 270 psychiatric patients who were treated and discharged from an acute inpatient facility combined with tract‐level data from the 1990 U.S. Census. I find that living in a socially disorganized neighborhood increased the probability of violence among the sample, an effect that was not mediated by self‐reported social supports. Implications for future research in the areas of violence and mental illness are discussed.     

Balancing autonomy and risk: a failure of nerve in England and Wales?

Specialised mental health legislation typically provides for the hospitalisation and treatment of those with mental disorders in the absence of their consent. The article examines the possible justifications for the existence of these special powers and argues that two of the most common justifications, the protection of the patient and the protection of others, do discriminate against those with a mental, as opposed to a physical, disorder. The relationship between mental health and mental capacity, or guardianship, legislation is then considered and possible ways forward are discussed with particular reference to the current reform debate in England and Wales.     

Mental disorder as the cause of a crime

An offender's punishment can be reduced when a court decides that his mental disorder reduces his responsibility for what he did. Courts have sought to establish whether a mentally disordered offender's responsibility is reduced by asking whether his disorder caused the crime. Acceptance of this “causation by mental disorder” criterion has fluctuated, however. This may be because causal explanations are not the types of explanations we are accustomed to offering for the kinds of acts that bring defendants, and psychiatric witnesses, to court. More often, we offer what philosophers have called “possibility” explanations for these acts. The application of psychiatry to possibility explanations has not been widely explored. It offers the potential for the improved use of psychiatric evidence in criminal proceedings.