Therapeutic jurisprudence and outpatient commitment law: Kendra's Law and case study.

This article considers the implications of assisted outpatient commitment laws (OPC), with specific focus on New York's "Kendra's Law" through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). In this article, the author offers perspectives on the relationship between involuntary civil commitment, outpatient commitment, and the concept of the "least restrictive alternative"; considers pertinent empirical research, and looks at OPC's controversial relationship to forced drugging. Here, the civil libertarian critique is briefly considered, as well as the MacArthur Research Network research. Finally, the author looks closely at Kendra's Law, providing a brief overview of the law itself, and identifying some "pressure points" and pivotal issues, and considers the TJ implications of Kendra's Law, to determine how it "fits" into the public's "take" on all of mental disability law.     

Trends in explosive contamination

This study sought to assign a rough order of magnitude for the amount of explosive residue likely to be available in real-world searches for clandestine explosives. A variety of explosives (TNT, TATP, HMX, AN, RDX, PETN) in various forms (powder, flake, detonating cord, plastic) were carefully weighed or cut into containers, and the amount of residue inadvertently remaining on the work area, hands, or containers was quantified. This was used to evaluate the spillage potential of each explosive. The adhesion of each explosive to a glass surface was quantified from amount of explosive adhering to the inside of a glass vial into which the explosive had been placed and then removed by vigorous tapping. In powdered form, most of the explosives--TNT, PETN, RDX, HMX, and TATP--exhibited similar spillage and adhesion to glass. However, PETN as sheet explosive and plasticized RDX (C-4), showed very little potential to contaminate surfaces, either by spillage or adhesion to glass.     

Legal,ethical and clinical implications of prescribing involuntary,life-threatening treatment: the case of the Sunshine Kid

Involuntary treatment is a concept often familiar to psychiatrists. In clinical practice, it usually involves the hospitalization and pharmacological management of patients with severe mental disorders. However, the scope of involuntary treatment is not limited to the management of mental illness alone. Psychiatric patients afflicted with medical illnesses may require hospitalization and invasive procedures for optimal management of these disorders. The following case illustrates a dilemma in which a psychotic patient refuses life-saving medical treatment; however, the treatment itself carries significant risk of morbidity and mortality. This article reviews the ethical, legal and clinical implications of making such difficult treatment decisions.