Stephen Rachlin

Double jeopardy: Suicide and malpractice

Psychiatric malpractice is not a common occurrence. However, the suicide of a patient under treatment is an event that may lead to legal action. The author details the basic facts and ideas necessary to an understanding of this phenomenon. The plaintiff must ultimately prove that there was a dereliction of professional duty that led directly to the death. Several cases from the legal literature are presented to illustrate how judges evaluate this type of claim. Recommendations designed to minimize the risk of being found negligent are offered, and include detailing the specifics of suicide precautions, careful documentation of decisions to grant patients increased freedom, consultation from supervisors or colleagues, and outreach to survivors. Suicide is not always preventable, but following appropriate standards of care is likely to convince the court that no liability need be attached to the patients demise.

The Presence of Counsel at Forensic Psychiatric Examinations

In virtually all situations involving forensic psychiatric assessments, the patient is represented by counsel. But does this fact entitle the lawyer to be present at the clinical evaluation? In a series of New York cases spanning a generation, judges have allowed presence of counsel at the psychiatric examination. The most common reason given for such a conclusion is to assure better cross-examination of the expert witness. Psychiatric evaluations mandated by law necessitate several guidelines different from those of the usual doctor/patient relationship. While we may have to accept the presence of attorneys in our consulting rooms, they should be observers only. To allow active intervention would distort the clinical process.

Characteristics of assaultive patients with schizophrenia versus personality disorder: six year analysis of the Assaulted Staff Action Program (ASAP).

Literature reviews of individual assaultive patients, repetitively violent patients, and restrained assaultive patients document that persons diagnosed with schizophrenia or personality disorder are at the highest risk to become assaultive. While there has been some initial research of possible predictor variables across diagnostic groups, this six-year retrospective study is the first to compare only persons with schizophrenia or personality disorder on basic demographic and the selected clinical variables of history of violence, personal victimization, and substance use disorder. In this study, the variance suggested that persons with schizophrenia and personality disorder were both likely to be assaultive. Assaults by persons with schizophrenia were somewhat proportional to their presence in the population studied. However, personality disordered patients represented a disproportional increase from the population studied. Younger females with a diagnosis of personality disorder and with histories of violence toward others and personal victimization appeared at increased risk to be assaultive and to require restraints. The findings and their implications for safety and clinical care are discussed.

Pathological Gambling and Criminal Responsibility

There exists significant interdisciplinary support for eliminating the volitional component of the insanity defense. Somewhat in contrast to this trend is the presentation of pathological gambling as a potentially exculpatory condition in criminal trials. The authors discuss three federal appellate court decisions on this attempted inappropriate usage of psychiatric diagnostic nomenclature. All have upheld convictions, and thereby rejected contentions that such an impulse disorder can form the basis for a valid plea of lack of criminal responsibility. It is suggested that the public interest will be served by statutorily making disturbances of behavioral control insufficient to raise a defense of insanity.