Estimating mental health needs and service utilization among prison inmates.

A sample of 3,684 inmates in the New York State prison system was surveyed in May 1986 to determine the prevalence of psychiatric and functional disability and service utilization. It was estimated that 5 percent had a severe psychiatric disability, and 10 percent had significant psychiatric disability. The higher the level of disability, the greater the proportion of inmates that had received mental health services in the last 30 days and in the last year. Still, 45 percent of the severe disability group had no service contacts in the last year. Patterns of utilization differed significantly by sex (a greater proportion of women received services) and by race (a greater proportion of whites received services). The clinical factors associated with receipt of services varied considerably between men and women.     

Interest groups or the public interest--why do we regulate health occupations?

State regulation of occupations has become more prevalent even while its negative consequences are becoming understood. This raises questions about the source of such regulation and the extent to which the interests of the public are being represented. In my study of the regulation of health occupations, I explore the influence of organized interest groups, of the general public interest, and the structure of the legislature and the political environment. I analyze six health occupations (dietician, nurse-midwife, occupational therapist, physician assistant, psychologist, and social worker) and find that although organized interest groups do influence how these occupations are regulated, the public interest also plays an important role.     

Changing views of jury power

This article highlights the major events and empirical research in the continuing debate over the power and competence of the jury in civil and criminal trials. The concept ofjury nullification, the power of the jury to return a verdict based upon their moral conscience despite the evidence and the law, is used as a convenient filter to discuss the legal and behavioral assumptions about jury power and performance. The legal, historical, and even behavioral contexts reflect a bipolar theme in the level of trust Americans have exhibited towards the jury system. One pole reflects the notion that juries lack predictability and rationality in their verdicts and are moved by emotional concerns. Antipodally, juries have been thought to reflect an historical competence at applying common sense notions of equity and rationality to conflicted and ambiguous cases. This article traces the history of these two views of jury power and competence. A critical review of the empirical research that may inform the debate about the jury's competence in both criminal and civil arenas is provided.     

Analysis of 2-hydroxyimipramine in an imipramine-related fatality

A fatality following ingestion of the tricyclic antidepressant imipramine (Novopramine), acetaminophen, and ethyl alcohol is described. Imipramine, desipramine, acetaminophen, and 2-hydroxyimipramine were quantitated by high performance liquid chromatography, and ethyl alcohol by gas liquid chromatography. Concentrations of imipramine, desipramine, 2-hydroxyimipramine, and acetaminophen were: in blood--9.0, 1.1, 3.9, and 11 mg/L; in urine--92, 14, and 42 mg/L (acetaminophen not quantitated in urine). Ethyl alcohol concentration in blood was less than 10 mg/dL and 105 mg/dL in the urine by headspace gas chromatography. These findings are compared to previous reports of imipramine-related fatalities. To our knowledge, this is the first fatality reported involving imipramine where analysis included quantitation of 2-hydroxyimipramine in blood and urine.