Suicide

2000 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-510 ◽  
Author(s):  
John S. Westefeld ◽  
Lillian M. Range ◽  
James R. Rogers ◽  
Michael R. Maples ◽  
Jamie L. Bromley ◽  
...  

Suicide is a major mental health problem in the United States and an issue that significantly impacts the mental health treatment community. Although the suicide rate remains relatively stable, the discipline of counseling psychology has broadened in scope and work settings have diversified. Thus, counseling psychology trainees are increasingly exposed to suicidal clients. Despite this reality, research suggests that comprehensive, systematic training in suicidology in counseling psychology programs rarely occurs. One reason for this state of affairs may be that the suicide literature is spread across a variety of disciplines, making it difficult for educators and practitioners to stay informed about the knowledge base in suicidology. The purpose of this contribution, therefore, is to provide counseling psychology educators and practitioners with an overview of the field of suicidology as it applies to the training and practice of counseling psychology.

2002 ◽  
Vol 159 (5) ◽  
pp. 845-851 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark J. Edlund ◽  
Philip S. Wang ◽  
Patricia A. Berglund ◽  
Stephen J. Katz ◽  
Elizabeth Lin ◽  
...  

1995 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 565-635 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arlene Kanter ◽  
Uri Aviram

In 1991, Israel enacted a new mental health law entitled the Treatment of Mental Patients Law, 1991. This law includes, for the first time, a provision authorizing involuntary outpatient commitment (“IOC”). In its simplest form, IOC is the procedure by which an individual who is determined to be mentally ill is ordered to comply involuntarily with mental health treatment outside of a hospital setting. The new Israeli involuntary outpatient commitment provision, known as “compulsory ambulatory care”, provides that an individual who meets the standards for civil commitment may be committed to involuntary outpatient treatment as a condition of release from inpatient care, or as a dispositional alternative to involuntary hospitalization.Originally enacted in the United States as a condition of release for persons being discharged from mental hospitals, or as an alternative to involuntary hospitalization, involuntary outpatient commitment has now been enacted in various forms in different countries throughout the world. The new Israeli IOC law is modeled after American IOC laws, (particularly those enacted in the early 1980's), which seek to provide involuntary mental health treatment to persons who do not meet a strict test of dangerousness for involuntary commitment.


Author(s):  
Mohamedu F. Jones

The presence of comprehensive correctional mental health treatment programs and services in any given jail or prison is often due to successful class action litigation. This chapter reviews the legal and constitutional background for correctional mental health care in the United States and addresses many of the critical ways these courts impact policy and care delivery on a daily basis. Several court decisions have shaped modern correctional mental health care delivery. Officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment to provide convicted prisoners with adequate medical care, which extends to mental health treatment. Pre-trial detainees also have a right to adequate physical and mental health care under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution). Since the Supreme Court proclaimed that inmates have a constitutional right to adequate health care, much has been written about the controlling decisions, their implications and applications by courts, and their implementation in correctional systems. There are, however, discrete issues related to mental health care in corrections that patients and providers in prisons and jails contend with daily that may not yet be resolved as matters of constitutional law. Case law and litigation are driving innovation in standards of care and enhancing the quality of correctional mental health. These reforms are gaining acceptance as preferred and expected standards of correctional mental health care in jails and prisons, and may reflect the present day ‘evolving standard of decency,’ becoming touchstones of constitutionally adequate care across systems.


Author(s):  
Mohamedu F. Jones

The presence of comprehensive correctional mental health treatment programs and services in any given jail or prison is often due to successful class action litigation. This chapter reviews the legal and constitutional background for correctional mental health care in the United States and addresses many of the critical ways these courts impact policy and care delivery on a daily basis. Several court decisions have shaped modern correctional mental health care delivery. Officials are obligated under the Eighth Amendment to provide convicted prisoners with adequate medical care, which extends to mental health treatment. Pre-trial detainees also have a right to adequate physical and mental health care under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution). Since the Supreme Court proclaimed that inmates have a constitutional right to adequate health care, much has been written about the controlling decisions, their implications and applications by courts, and their implementation in correctional systems. There are, however, discrete issues related to mental health care in corrections that patients and providers in prisons and jails contend with daily that may not yet be resolved as matters of constitutional law. Case law and litigation are driving innovation in standards of care and enhancing the quality of correctional mental health. These reforms are gaining acceptance as preferred and expected standards of correctional mental health care in jails and prisons, and may reflect the present day ‘evolving standard of decency,’ becoming touchstones of constitutionally adequate care across systems.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document