The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
-
Collaboration between physicians and attorneys seems inherently unnatural because of the traditionally disparate aspects of the human condition that each addresses, with the health of mind and body the domain of Medicine, and the preservation of rights and property the considered realm of Law. At a time when it was not en vogue for physicians and attorneys to work together, Howard Zonana recognized the value of this partnership and fostered a model of collaboration from which society has greatly benefited.
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2012
Peer review committees and state licensing boards: responding to allegations of physician misconduct.
Although physicians tend to be more concerned about malpractice actions, adjudication of complaints of alleged physician misconduct by peer review organizations and state licensing authorities can have equally serious consequences. Unlike medical malpractice, no patient injury is necessary to support the claim of alleged misconduct. ⋯ Unlike malpractice, where the standard of care is what the average prudent practitioner would be expected to do in similar circumstances, in peer review, the standard of care is the code that the organization has endorsed and to which the individual practitioner has agreed by choosing to join the organization. Forensic psychiatrists who may serve either as experts for a peer review or state board investigation or as peer review committee members must understand the legal foundation of the process and the attendant psychological and sociopolitical forces affecting the different parties.
-
Psychiatrists and attorneys often find collaboration difficult, even when working toward mutually beneficial goals. In this commentary, a young psychiatrist reflects upon the mismatch between physicians and attorneys. Differences in medical and legal training, as well as different personality styles and approaches to problem solving, may contribute to conflict. However, psychiatrists can benefit and learn from the attorneys' approach and apply it to situations in which advocacy for good patient care and the fundamental values of medicine is necessary.
-
J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law · Jan 2002
The role of mental health in the inmate disciplinary process: a national survey.
An effective system of inmate discipline is an important aspect of a safely run prison or jail. Historically, mentally ill inmates have had few or no protections against discipline routinely applied to their non-mentally ill peers. Arising from recent class action lawsuits challenging the quality of mental health care delivery in the nation's prisons, prison mental health professionals have been called on to play an increasing role in the inmate disciplinary process. ⋯ Little has been written in the psychiatric literature, however, examining this important role for prison mental health professionals. After first reviewing core legal and constitutional concepts, the author presents the results of a nationwide survey examining the role for mental health professionals in the inmate disciplinary process. To the author's knowledge, this is the first study to provide a comprehensive review of this subject.
-
Class action litigation has been instrumental in jail and prison reform during the past two decades. Correctional mental health systems have significantly benefited from such litigation. ⋯ The role of psychiatric experts, with particular reference to standards of care, is described. Specifically discussed are issues relevant to suicide prevention, the prevalence of mentally ill inmates in supermax prisons, and discharge planning.