Supplemental Material for Does Celebrity “Case Material” Worsen Attitudes Surrounding Mental Illness?

Keyword(s):  
1982 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-143 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Mccready ◽  
H. Merskey

The survey of 102 consecutive certificates for involuntary admission and a review of the case material demonstrated that in 78 cases the form was completed adequately. In 13 cases full description of evidence of mental disorder was lacking on the certificate but after reviewing the cases it, would appear that clear evidence of mental disorder was probably present at the time of certification. In this survey, suicidal or homicidal risk alone was not considered evidence of mental disorder. In the final 11 cases the grounds for diagnosing mental disorder rested upon the presence of phenomena like anger, alcoholism, or mild mental retardation or the presence of a personality disorder, all of these being associated with risk to the patient or another person. Compelling evidence for the necessity of psychiatric commitment in these complex situations cannot be described briefly; thus it does not appear that an altered certification form would solve the problem.


1955 ◽  
Vol 101 (425) ◽  
pp. 863-870 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. E. Orme

Owing to the increase in the expectancy of life, there is an increase in the incidence of aged people suffering from mental illness who are admitted to hospital. This has stimulated the paying of special attention to the problems of differential diagnosis in order to avoid lengthy hospitalization wherever possible. Recent studies have tended to emphasize the frequency of affective disorders as well as senile dementia in aged patients. It is consequently important to distinguish the former group because of the greater possibilities of treatment there than in senile dementia. A recent paper (O'Connell, 1954) has been concerned with the study of case material of patients over the age of sixty admitted to this hospital. The present study is largely based on material obtained from patients drawn from O'Connell's sample, but also includes cases with longer hospitalization.


2003 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-524
Author(s):  
Brent Pollitt

Mental illness is a serious problem in the United States. Based on “current epidemiological estimates, at least one in five people has a diagnosable mental disorder during the course of a year.” Fortunately, many of these disorders respond positively to psychotropic medications. While psychiatrists write some of the prescriptions for psychotropic medications, primary care physicians write more of them. State legislatures, seeking to expand patient access to pharmacological treatment, granted physician assistants and nurse practitioners prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications. Over the past decade other groups have gained some form of prescriptive authority. Currently, psychologists comprise the primary group seeking prescriptive authority for psychotropic medications.The American Society for the Advancement of Pharmacotherapy (“ASAP”), a division of the American Psychological Association (“APA”), spearheads the drive for psychologists to gain prescriptive authority. The American Psychological Association offers five main reasons why legislatures should grant psychologists this privilege: 1) psychologists’ education and clinical training better qualify them to diagnose and treat mental illness in comparison with primary care physicians; 2) the Department of Defense Psychopharmacology Demonstration Project (“PDP”) demonstrated non-physician psychologists can prescribe psychotropic medications safely; 3) the recommended post-doctoral training requirements adequately prepare psychologists to prescribe safely psychotropic medications; 4) this privilege will increase availability of mental healthcare services, especially in rural areas; and 5) this privilege will result in an overall reduction in medical expenses, because patients will visit only one healthcare provider instead of two–one for psychotherapy and one for medication.


1996 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 274-275
Author(s):  
O. Lawrence ◽  
J.D. Gostin

In the summer of 1979, a group of experts on law, medicine, and ethics assembled in Siracusa, Sicily, under the auspices of the International Commission of Jurists and the International Institute of Higher Studies in Criminal Science, to draft guidelines on the rights of persons with mental illness. Sitting across the table from me was a quiet, proud man of distinctive intelligence, William J. Curran, Frances Glessner Lee Professor of Legal Medicine at Harvard University. Professor Curran was one of the principal drafters of those guidelines. Many years later in 1991, after several subsequent re-drafts by United Nations (U.N.) Rapporteur Erica-Irene Daes, the text was adopted by the U.N. General Assembly as the Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. This was the kind of remarkable achievement in the field of law and medicine that Professor Curran repeated throughout his distinguished career.


2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 8-8
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz

Abstract The author, who is the editor of the Mental and Behavioral Disorders chapter of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, comments on the previous article, Assessing Mental and Behavioral Disorder Impairment: Overview of Sixth Edition Approaches in this issue of The Guides Newsletter. The new Mental and Behavioral Disorders (M&BD) chapter, like others in the AMA Guides, is a consensus opinion of many authors and thus reflects diverse points of view. Psychiatrists and psychologists continue to struggle with diagnostic taxonomies within the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, but anxiety, depression, and psychosis are three unequivocal areas of mental illness for which the sixth edition of the AMA Guides provides M&BD impairment rating. Two particular challenges faced the authors of the chapter: how could M&BD disorders be rated (and yet avoid an onslaught of attorney requests for an M&BD rating in conjunction with every physical impairment), and what should be the maximal impairment rating for a mental illness. The sixth edition uses three scales—the Psychiatric Impairment Rating Scale, the Global Assessment of Function, and the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale—after careful review of a wide variety of indices. The AMA Guides remains a work in progress, but the authors of the M&BD chapter have taken an important step toward providing a reasonable method for estimating impairment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document