Advertisement

Legal Issues in a Psychiatric Emergency Setting

  • Henry A. Beyer
Part of the Critical Issues in Psychiatry book series (CIPS)

Abstract

One might ask why there should be special legal rules applicable to the provision of psychiatric emergency services and not other emergency medical services. Aren’t the legal principles the same, regardless of the type of services rendered? Although the same basic legal doctrines apply to both situations, certain important aspects of those doctrines are so pronounced in the case of a mentally disturbed patient that special discussion is warranted. For example, a psychiatric patient may be unable to give a legally valid competent consent to treatment or may pose a greater than average threat of losing control and causing serious physical harm. These characteristics have caused courts and legislatures to accord special treatment to the psychiatric emergency patient. Therefore, in this chapter, we will first describe the law relevant to all medical emergencies and then discuss in detail specific features applicable to psychiatric emergencies.

Keywords

Antipsychotic Drug Psychiatric Emergency Mental Health Facility Civil Commitment Psychiatric Emergency Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. 1.
    Roe vs Wade, 410 US 113 (1973).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Superintendent of Belchertown State School vs Saikewicz, 370 NE 2nd 417, at 426 (Mass, 1977).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cobbs vs Grant, 502 P2d 1 (Cai, 1972).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mitchell vs Robinson, 334 SW2d 11 (Mo, 1960).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marcus vs Liebman, 375 NE2d 486 (111 App Ct, 1978).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dershowitz, A: Psychiatry in the legal process: A knife that cuts both ways, in Brooks A: Law, Psychiatry and the Mental Health System. Boston, Little Brown and Co, 1974, pp 609, 615.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    See, eg., Mass Gen Laws, ch 123, sec 10.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Melville vs Sabbatino, 30 Conn Sup 320, 313 A2d 886 (1973).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mass 104 CMR 3.04(7) and 104 CMR 3.14(5).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mass Gen Laws, ch 201, sees 6, 6A, and 14.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    NE 2d 40 (1981).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibid., at 51.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rogers vs Commissioner, 390 Mass 489 (1983).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ibid., at 491.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ibid., at 507.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    NE 2d at 52.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    See, eg., W Va Code, ch 16, sec 4C-11.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Rogers vs Okin, 634 F 2d 650 (1st Cir, 1980), at 659; vacated and remanded sub nom Mills vs Rogers, 457 US 291 (1982).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ibid., at 634 F 2d 659–660.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Ibid., at 660.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    In re Richard Roe III, note 11, above, at 54.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Ibid., at 55.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mass at 491.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ibid, (footnote omitted).Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ibid., at 510–511.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ibid., at 511, n 26.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Each of these factors is discussed in In re Richard Roe III, note 11, above, at 56–59.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ibid., at 59, n 20.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ibid., at 55.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Tarasoff vs Regents of the University of California, 551 P 2d 334 (Cai, 1976).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bradley Center vs Wessner, 51 USLW 2275 (Ga Super Ct, 1982); Durflinger vs Artiles, 52 USLW 2361 (Kans Super Ct, 1983 ); Lipari vs Sears Roebuck, 497 F. Supp 185 (D Neb 1980); Mcintosh vs Milane, 168 NJ Super 466 (1979).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Shaw vs Glickman, 415 A2d 625 (Md App 1980).Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Mass Gen Laws, ch 119, sec 51 A.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Pa Act of July 9, 1976, PL 817, No 143, sec 301(b), interpreted and applied in Comm ex rei Gibson vs DiGiacinto, 395 A2d 938 (Pa Super Ct, 1978).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    S Ct 1804 (1979).Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    See, eg., Superintendent of Worcester State Hospital vs Hagburg, 374 Mass 271, 372 NE2d 242 (1978).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    See Marcus vs Liebman, note 5, above.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    In re Richard Roe III, note 11, above, at 61.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    O’Connor vs Donaldson, 422 US 563 (1975).Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ibid., at 573.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Romeo vs Youngberg, 644 F2d 147 (3rd Cir, 1980); remanded 102 S Ct 2452 (1982).Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Ibid., at 102 S Ct 2459.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    See, eg., Wyatt vs Stickney, 325 F Supp 781, 334 F Supp 1341, 344 F Supp 373 (MD Ala, 1971–72); generally affirmed sub nom Wyatt vs Aderholt, 503 F2d, 1305 (5th Cir, 1974 ).Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Knecht vs Gillman, 488 F2d 1136 (8th Cir, 1973).Google Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kaimowitz vs Michigan Department of Mental Health, CA No 73-19434-AW (Cir Ct, Wayne County, Mich, July 10, 1973), summarized at 42 USLW 2063 (July 31, 1973 ).Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    See, generally, Wyatt vs Stickney, note 43 above.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Rogers vs Commissioner, note 13 above, at 491.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Ibid., at 497–498.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Ibid., at 500, n 14.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    See, eg., Rennie vs Klein, 476 F Supp 1294 (D NJ, 1979), affirmed in part, 653 F2d 836 (3rd Cir, 1981); Davis vs Hubbard, 506 F Supp 915 (ND Ohio, 1980); In re K.K.B., 609 P.2d 747 (Okla, 1980 ); A.E. and R.R. vs Mitchell, C 78–466 (USDC, D Utah, June 12, 1980 ). (Under Utah’s statute, the requisite findings for involuntary commitment include, in effect, a finding that the person being committed is incompetent to consent to treatment.)Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Jamison vs Farabee, No C 780445 WHO (USDC, ND Cal, Consent Decree, 4/26/83), reported at 7 Ment Disabil L Rep 436 (1983).Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    In re Richard Roe III, note 11, above, at 61, n 24.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Brune vs Belinkoff, 354 Mass 102 (1968), at 109.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Mass Gen Laws, ch 111C, sec 13.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mass Gen Laws, ch 111C, sec 14.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    See, eg., Ruben LH: Managing suicidal behavior. JAMA 241(3): 282–284, 1979; Doctor and the law: On expert guidance and the suicide risk. Medical World News, March 1, 1974, Vol 15, p 46E; Cooper TR: Medical treatment facility liable for patient suicide and other self-injury. J Legal Med 3:20–29, 1975; Seiden RH: Suicide among the young: A review of the literature, 1900–1967. Joint Commission on Mental Health of Children, 1969 (A supplement to the bulletin of suicidology). See also Morgan HG: Death Wishes: The Understanding and Management of Deliberate Self-Harm. New York, John Wiley and Sons, 1979. In this book, suicide, “fatal self-harm,” is distinguished from other, nonfatal “acute deliberate self-harm.”Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Hemlock: A Society Supporting Active Voluntary Euthanasia for the Terminally 111; “The Society for the Right to Die”; and “Exit,” a British group, which, in March 1980, announced plans to publish a manual entitled A Guide to Self-Deliverance, outlining “nonviolent” methods of committing suicide. Science, 1980, 209:1096–1097. Cf. “The American Association of Suicidology,” a “multidisciplinary organization of professionals and non-professionals who share a conviction that the advancement of suicidology will contribute to our knowledge how best to reduce human self-destruction,” and which sponsors a quarterly journal, Suicide and Life-Threatening Behavior.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    For an exposition of the arguments that led to this repeal, see The punishment of suicide—A need for change. Villanova Law Rev. 14: 463, 1969.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Brooks AD: Law, Psychiatry and the Mental Health System. Boston, Little, Brown and Co, 1974, p 701.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Ibid., at 701.Google Scholar
  61. 61.
    A California Court of Appeals has held that “ if a person is insane, he cannot form the intent to take his own life”.Thus, “ I nsane persons cannot commit suicide”. Searle vs Allstate Life Insurance Company, as reported by the New York Times, September 4, 1979. This view, although critical to the interpretation of various provisions of insurance policies, is of only semantic interest to this discussion.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Cooper TR: Medical treatment facility liability for patient suicide and other self-injury. J Legal Med 2:20–29, 1975 (quote, 29; footnotes omitted).Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Dinnerstein vs United States, 486 F2d 34 (2nd Cir, 1973).Google Scholar
  64. 64.
    NYS2nd 128 (New York Superior Court, Appeals Division, 1976).Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    But see discussions above in sections 11 and 13.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Dinnerstein, note 63, above, at 38 (footnotes omitted).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    See, eg., Okla Stat Ann, Title 21, sec 818.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Text, above, at note 6.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry A. Beyer
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Law and Health SciencesBoston University School of LawBostonUSA

Personalised recommendations