Science is not value-free

The scientific attitude involves a willingness to be objective. But many falsely assume additionally that such willingness implies being completely value-free. Actually, scientific research is value-saturated. At every step one faces the question, “Which is the best way?” Not only is it better to be than not to be scientific, scientists believe, but one ought to seek what is best relative to all aspects of science. Exploration is limited to (1) problems, (2) attitude and (3) methods. Even prejudice, which is evil when bias prevents or produces false results, may also be good when it helps produce true conclusions. Do policy scientists have special obligations regarding this issue?     

The multidimensional assessment of dangerousness: competence assessment in patient care and liability prevention

We offer a multidimensional model for assessing dangerousness of patients in relation to their competence to engage in informative dialogue with clinicians. This model, though based on clinical considerations, may offer some degree of liability protection. Current clinical and legal trends are reviewed as they bear upon this determination.     

The 4 Ds of Forensic Mental Health Assessments of Personal Injury

The field of psychiatric/psychological injury and law concerns tort and other legal claims for injuries sustained in events at issue, such as in motor vehicle accidents (MVAs), worker compensation, or the veteran affairs (VA). The 4 Ds refer to the requirement that legal action in these types of cases can proceed when there is a duty, the duty has been discharged with dereliction, the resultant act has caused directly tortious harm, and damages are applicable. In contrast, the related 4 Cs refer to the conditions of effective forensic testimony. The principles of forensic mental health assessment (FMHA; Heilbrun et al., 2009) underscore the scientific requirements in forensic assessments, as do the American Psychological Association’s (APA, 2013) forensic specialty guidelines. For example, Brodsky’s maxims for effective work in court (Brodsky & Gutheil, 2016) cover a broad spectrum of ethical and practice guidelines for the profession. Similarly, Young (2016 a, b, c) has specified the parameters of admissible evidence in court, functioning ethically for the court, and the need to be comprehensive, scientifically informed, and impartial in forensic mental health assessments. All these sources lead to an integrated set of the principles for effective and ethical practice in the forensic arena of mental health work, referred here as the 4 Ds for the field of psychiatric/psychological injury and law. These revised 4 D principles involve Dignity, Distance, Data, and Determinations.     

In the wake of a negligent release law suit

Several staff members at a state psychiatric hospital were found negligent in a jury trial for having released a psychiatric patient who subsequently killed a member of the plaintiff's family. This study explored the impact of the law suit on the hospital staff members as individuals and on the functioning of the institution. Self-report measures revealed that both named defendants and nondefendant staff experienced symptoms of emotional disturbance associated with the litigation. Self-report measures suggest that the law suit was not instructive in any meaningful way regarding improved procedures for subsequent release decision making. Archival data indicate that the staff did release significantly fewer patients during the trial and follow-up period than prior to the litigation. Results are discussed in the context of Wexler's concept of therapeutic jurisprudence.This study was supported by a grant from the Research Grants Committee of the University of Alabama. The results are the opinions of the authors and do not reflect the opinions of the Research Grants Committee or the University of Alabama. We are indebted to Saleem Shah for his suggestions regarding methodology and particularly the need to investigate positive and instructive aspects of law suits.