Medical malpractice litigation: do the British have a better remedy?

Medical malpractice claims are filed nearly ten times more frequently in America than they are in Great Britain. British patients generally adopt a less adversarial stance toward medical malpractice than do American patients. This Article examines the British malpractice system, as compared with the American system, and explores the differences between the two, in terms of costs and fees, liability rules, statutory provisions, and judicial attitudes toward malpractice litigation. The Article also discusses British social and institutional factors, such as the "taint" of litigation and the National Health Service, and evaluates how these factors affect British malpractice litigation. The Article presents the alternative forums available to British patients in seeking satisfaction for their medical service complaints. The Article concludes with an evaluation of how these factors achieve the three societal objectives of malpractice litigation: reparation, emotional vindication and deterrence.     

De Clérambault's Syndrome (Erotomania) and claims of psychiatric malpractice

De Clérambault's Syndrome or Erotomania was originally described as a delusional disorder in which a woman believes that an older man of higher social status is passionately in love with her. The patient's relentless pursuit of the delusional love object, often with escalating intrusiveness, may eventually involve threats or overt acts of retaliation, in response to repeated rejection, unrequited love, or alleged betrayal. Cases from the literature are reviewed in which the delusional romantic attachment involves the patient's psychiatrist or another medical specialist. The authors present a case involving a patient suffering from erotomania who develops a delusional fixation on her psychiatrist and, after her advances are repeatedly rejected, sues him for malpractice, alleging she had a sexual relationship with him in the course of treatment. The implications of the litigious paranoid, who uses the legal system to act out delusional concerns and retaliatory fantasies, are discussed. This is the first known case of an erotomanic patient claiming malpractice on the grounds that her psychiatrist had a sexual relationship with her.     

PMS,psychosis and culpability: sound or misguided defense?

Premenstrual Syndrome (PMS) is believed to affect up to 90% of women of reproductive age. A small subset of women have been identified who actually experience psychotic symptoms in the premenstrual phase of their cycles. Not surprisingly, PMS has made it into the courts where it has been offered as a defense for criminal acts. The defense has generally fared poorly in the United States, although it has been successfully used as a factor in supporting diminished capacity in Great Britain. The following paper sets out to review the medical literature on premenstrual syndrome with a particular focus on premenstrual psychosis. Available literature from both medical and legal sources is then utilized to investigate instances in which premenstrual psychosis has been invoked as a defense in the courts.     

Race and peremptory challenges during voir dire: Do prosecution and defense agree?

Recent litigation in state and federal courts in the United States suggests that black prospective jurors may be systematically excluded from sitting on trial juries through the issue of peremptory challenges during the voir dire process. Numerous trial and appellate cases have reaffirmed the importance of excluding prospective jurors without cause through peremptory challenges. An insufficient number of studies have examined peremptory challenge data to determine if a systematic bias against black prospective jurors actually exists. This study analyzes peremptory challenges issued by both prosecution and defense to determine if both adversary parties agree on the proclivity of black jurors to influence a jury verdict in a given direction. The study concludes that both prosecution and defense agree, as evidenced in the issue of peremptory challenges, that black jurors are prone to move a jury toward a verdict of acquittal.     

Medical Marijuana Registries: A Painful Choice?

Though the medical use of marijuana is legal in thirty-three states, it remains illegal under the federal Controlled Substances Act. Any marijuana use can subject individuals to severe criminal and civil penalties under federal law. States that condition patient access and treatment on registration in a state database impose real risks on their citizens. Although many scholars have written about the tension between federal and state treatment of marijuana, this is the first article to examine marijuana patient registry privacy and fundamental rights issues. This article first reviews the relationship between marijuana use and patient treatment, with a focus on health-care and privacy rights under state and federal law. The article then explains how marijuana registries compare to broader patient registries, such as contagious disease and other medical condition patient registries, and the unique issues presented by marijuana patient registries. It then discusses the elevated risk to constitutional, privacy, and fundamental rights that may result if states do not carefully construct marijuana registries. The article concludes by proposing principles for how both states and dispensaries should approach marijuana registries in order to provide health benefits and avoid harm to patients.     

Religious fundamentalism,religiosity, and priming: effects on attitudes,perceptions, and mock jurors’ decisions in an insanity defense case

Jurors are asked to use their personal knowledge and experience to make verdict decisions; thus, it is no surprise that their religious beliefs might influence their decisions. During legal insanity trials, jurors might also be exposed to religious stimuli (e.g. crucifix, prayer, Bible, etc.), which could evoke (prime) religious beliefs and thus influence decisions. Two studies examined whether dimensions of religiosity and religious beliefs relate to attitudes and decisions concerning mental health defenses, testing social identity theory against Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis. In Study 1 (attitudes survey) and Study 2 (mock juror decision-making paradigm), religious fundamentalist beliefs consistently predicted punitive attitudes and decisions related to mental health defenses and verdicts, and this was moderated by intrinsic religiosity, such that religious fundamentalist beliefs only predicted punitiveness for individuals low in intrinsic religiosity. Also, priming fundamentalist beliefs increased punitiveness in both verdict and sentencing decisions. Combined, these results suggest that religious beliefs play a role in jurors’ verdict decisions in an insanity case, and that priming fundamentalist beliefs increases jurors’ punitiveness. Allport and Ross’s religiosity hypothesis was supported, but social identity theory was not.