Advertisement

The Psychiatrist’s Liability for Negligence in the Process of Consent and Treatment

  • Seymour L. Halleck
Part of the Critical Issues in Psychiatry book series (CIPS)

Abstract

Like all other doctors, according to law the psychiatrist must obtain consent from patients before initiating diagnostic procedures or treatment. Initiating procedures with patients who have not consented to treatment may be actionable under the law of battery. But even if the patient does agree to a particular intervention, the physician can still be sued if he has been negligent in providing sufficient information as to the risks of that procedure. Lawsuits based on the physician’s failure to provide adequate information to the patient are usually adjudicated under the theory of negligence. The physician can be liable not only for treating without consent, but also for treating when the patient consents without having received sufficient information.

Keywords

Tardive Dyskinesia Electroconvulsive Therapy Psychotic Patient Psychiatric Practice Refuse Treatment 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    L. H. Roth, A. Meisel, and C. W. Lidz, “Tests of Competency to Consent to Treatment,” American Journal of Psychiatry 134, no. 3, (1977): 279–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    A. Brooks, “The Right to Refuse Treatment,” Administration in Mental Health 4, no. 2 (1977): 90–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vasconcellos Bill, California State Assembly Bill 4481.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. H. Roth, “Judicial Action Report,” Psychiatric News 14, no. 9 (1979): 3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooks, “Right to Refuse Treatment,” p. 90Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    B. J. Ennis, nd R. D. Emery, The Rights of Mental Patients ( New York: Avon Books, 1978 ).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. H. Turnbull, The Law and the Mentally Handicapped in North Carolina, Chapel Hill: Institute of Government, University of North Carolina, (1979).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Whitree v. State, 56 Misc. 2d 693, 290 N.Y.S.2d 486 (1968).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Steele v. Woods, 327 S.W.2d 187 (Mo. 1959 ).Google Scholar
  10. B. Barber et al., Research on Human Subjects: Problems of Social Control in Medical Experimentation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1973); Kaimowitz for John Doe v. Michigan Department of Mental Health, Civ. no. 73–19453–4 (1973).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. J. Annas, The Rights of Hospital Patients ( New York: Avon Books, 1975 ), p. 57.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Mitchell v. Robinson, 334 S.W.2d 11 (Mo. 1960); affd. after retrial, 360 S.W. 673 (Mo. 1962 ).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 502 P.2d 1 (1972).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gray v. Grunnell, 423 Pa. 144, 223 A. 2d 663 (1966).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ú.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, “Protection of Human Subjects: Proposed Policy,” Federal Register 39 (August 1974): 30647–30557.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 502 P.2d 1 (1972).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reyes v. Wyeth Laboratories, 498 F.2d 1264 (5th Cir. 1974 ).Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 502 P.2d 1 (1972); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 ( D.C. Cir. 1972 ).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Annas, Rights of Hospital Patients,p. 67.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 502 P.2d 1 (1972).Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    S. E. Fishalow, “The Tort Liability of the Psychiatrist,” Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law 3, no. 4, (1975): 196.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Stone, Mental Health and Law: A System in Transition ( Rockville, Md.: DHEW, 1975 ), P. 105.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Stone, Mental Health and Law: A System in Transition.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    “Medicolegal-Cheese and Tranylcypromine,” British Medical Journal 3 (1970): 354.Google Scholar
  26. R. Sovner et al.,“Tardive Dyskinesia and Informed Consent,” Psychosomatics 19,no. 3 (1978): 173.Google Scholar
  27. 28.
    Foxluger v. State, 23 Misc. 2d. 933, 203 N.Y.S.2d 985 (Ct. Cl. 1960 ).Google Scholar
  28. 29.
    Brown v. Moore, 247 F.2d 711 (3d Cir. 1957 ) Google Scholar
  29. 30.
    Meunier v. DePaul Hospital, 218 So. 2d 98 ( La. Aff. 1969 ).Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Collins v. Hand, 431 Pa. 378, 246 A.2d (1968).Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Rice v. Nardini, Ca. 703–4, Docket no. 78N-1103 (D.C., 1976 ).Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    W. H. Masters and V. E. Johnson, “Principles of the New Sex Therapy”,American Journal of Psychiatry 133 (1976): 548–554.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    A. Stone, “Legal Implications of Sexual Activities Between Psychiatrists and Patients,” American Journal of Psychiatry 133 (1976): 1138–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Keiser v. Berry, Cir. Ct. 78–8182 (Fla. 1979 ).Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Stone, “Legal Implications of Sexual Activities.”Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    A. R. Holder, Medical Malpractice Law (New York: Wiley, 1975), p. 216. Ibid.,p. 202.Google Scholar
  37. 38.
    Annas, Rights of Hospital Patients,p. 57.Google Scholar
  38. 39.
    Holder, Medical Malpractice Law,chap. 12.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1980

Authors and Affiliations

  • Seymour L. Halleck
    • 1
  1. 1.University of North CarolinaChapel HillUSA

Personalised recommendations