Skip to main content

Treating Patients Who Threaten Violence

Ethical Concerns

  • Chapter

Part of the book series: Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law ((CIAP,volume 7))

Abstract

The problem of violence in contemporary American society is both complex and compelling.1 Interpersonal violence can occur in many forms, with death due to intentional injury being the most serious, though not the most common violent crime. In 1980 the United States homicide rate reached 10.6/100,000—the highest rate recorded this century. The lifetime risk for being a victim of homicide is 1/240 for whites and 1/47 for blacks. Further, the prevalence of nonfatal assault is about 100 times greater.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.

Buying options

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   249.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Glazer D: Violence in society, in Lystad M (ed): Violence in the Home: Interdisciplinary Perspectives. New York, Brunner/Mazel, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Rosenberg ML, Mercy JA: Homicide: Epidemiologic analysis at the national level. Bull NYAcad Med 1986; 62: 376–399.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Lion JR: Ethical issues and violent behavior. Am J Soc Psychiatry 1984; 4 (3): 9–11.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Eth S, Robb JW: Informed consent: The problem, in Kentsmith DK, Salladay SA, Miya PA (eds): Ethics in Mental Health Practice. Orlando FL, Grune & Stratton, 1986.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Redlich F, Mollica RF: Overview ethical issues in contemporary psychiatry. Am J Psychiatry 1976; 133: 125–136.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Katz J: The Silent World of Doctor and Patient. New York, Free Press, 1984, p 59.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Shultz MM: From informed consent to patient choice: A new protected interest. Yale Law J 1985; 95: 219–299.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Roth LH: Competency to consent for or refuse treatment, in Grinspoon L (ed): Psychiatry 1982: Annual Review. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Culver CM, Ferrell RB, Green RM: ECT and the special problems of informed consent. Am J Psychiatry 1980; 137: 586–591.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Reiser SJ: Refusing treatment for mental illness: Historical and ethical dimensions. Am J Psychiatry 1980; 137: 329–331.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Clare AW: Ethical issues in psychiatry. Practitioner 1979; 223: 89–96.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Livermore JM, Malinquist CP, Meehl PE: On the justifications for civil commitment. Univ Penn Law Rev 1968; 117: 75–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Schwarcz HI, Appelbaum PS, Kaplan RD: Clinical judgments in the decision to commit: Psychiatric discretion and the law: Arch Gen Psychiatry 1984; 41: 811–815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. In re Williams, 157 F supp 871 (1958).

    Google Scholar 

  15. New York Civil Liberties Union: Objections in involuntary admission to mental hospitals. Psychoanal Rev 1971; 58: 385–394.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Lansdorf RG: The involuntary commitment of adults: An examination of recent legal trends. Psychiatr Clin NAM 1983; 6: 651–660.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Mestrovic SG, Cook JA: The dangerousness standards: What is it and how is it used? Int J Law Psychiatry 1986; 8: 443–469.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Shah SA: Dangerousness and civil commitment of the mentally ill: Some public policy considerations. Am J Psychiatry 1975; 132: 501–505.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Appelbaum PS, Hamm RM: Decision to seek commitment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1982; 39: 447–451.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Steadman HJ: The right not to be a false positive: Problems in the application of the dangerous standard. Psychiatr Q 1980; 52: 84–99.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Cahn CH: The ethics of involuntary treatment: The position of the Canadian Psychiatric Association. Canad J Psychiatry 1982; 27: 67–74.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Taylor PJ, Gown J: Violence and psychosis I-Risk of violence among psychotic men. Br Med J 1984; 288: 1945–1949.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Soswsky L: Explaining the increased arrest rate among mental patients. Am./ Psychiatry 1980; 137: 1602–1605.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Rofman ES, Askinzi C, Fant E: The prediction of dangerous behavior in emergency civil commitment. Am J Psychiatry 1980; 137: 1061–1064.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Monahan J: The prediction of violent behavior: Toward a second generation of theory and policy. Am J Psychiatry 1984; 141: 10–15.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kane JM, Quitkin F, Rifkin A, Wagner J, Rosenberg G, Bernstein M: Attitudinal changes of involuntarily committed patients following treatment. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1983; 40: 374–377.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Bloch S, Chodoff P (eds): Psychiatr Ethics. New York, Oxford University Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Tarasoff v Regents of the University of California; reargued 17 Cal 3d, 551 p 2d 334, 131 Cal Reptr 33 (1976).

    Google Scholar 

  29. Stone AA: Law, Psychiatry and Morality. Washington, DC, American Psychiatric Press, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Mills MJ, Sullivan G, Eth S: Protecting third parties: A decade after Tarasoff. Am Psychiatry 1987; 144: 68–74.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Appelbaum PS: Tarasoff and the clinician: Problems in fulfilling the duty to protect. Am J Psychiatry 1985; 142: 425–429.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Beck JC: When the patient threatens violence: An empirical study of clinical practice after Tarasoff. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1982; 10: 189–201.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Wexler D: Patients, therapists and third parties: The victimological virtues of Tarasoff. Int J Law Psychiatry 1979; 2: 1–28.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Wulsin LR, Bursztajn H, Gytheil TG: Unexpected clinical features of the Tarasoff decision: The therapeutic alliance and the “duty to warn.” Am J Psychiatry 1983; 140: 601–603.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1990 Springer Science+Business Media New York

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Eth, S., Mills, M.J. (1990). Treating Patients Who Threaten Violence. In: Rosner, R., Weinstock, R. (eds) Ethical Practice in Psychiatry and the Law. Critical Issues in American Psychiatry and the Law, vol 7. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1663-1_14

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-1663-1_14

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4899-1665-5

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4899-1663-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics