Overview of Legal Issues in Psychiatry

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy D. Gunter
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Forensic Psychiatry ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Treatment Provider ◽  
Regulatory Issues

Psychiatrists routinely encounter legal and regulatory issues in the practice of psychiatry. This review provides an overview of the psychiatrist’s duties and responsibilities in the doctor-patient relationship and common legal issues arising in clinical practice, with reference to US statutory and regulatory practices. The field of forensic psychiatry is described, and the roles of the forensic evaluator and the treatment provider are compared. This review contains 2 figures, 5 tables, and 64 references. Key words: civil commitment, confidentiality, duty to third parties, forensic psychiatry, guardianship, gun ownership, medical decision making, medical marijuana, risk assessment 

Overview of Legal Issues in Psychiatry

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tracy D. Gunter
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Forensic Psychiatry ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Treatment Provider ◽  
Regulatory Issues

Psychiatrists routinely encounter legal and regulatory issues in the practice of psychiatry. This review provides an overview of the psychiatrist’s duties and responsibilities in the doctor-patient relationship and common legal issues arising in clinical practice, with reference to US statutory and regulatory practices. The field of forensic psychiatry is described, and the roles of the forensic evaluator and the treatment provider are compared. This review contains 2 figures, 5 tables, and 64 references. Key words: civil commitment, confidentiality, duty to third parties, forensic psychiatry, guardianship, gun ownership, medical decision making, medical marijuana, risk assessment 

scholarly journals “If the Problem Persists, Come Back To See Me … .”—An Empirical Study of Clinical Negligence Cases Against General Practitioners

2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 406-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rob Heywood
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
General Practitioners ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Empirical Investigation ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Original Contribution ◽  
Key Factor ◽  
Judicial Reasoning ◽  
The Law

Abstract The law of negligence, as it applies to General Practitioners (GPs), is underexplored in the literature. There has been no substantial research undertaken that has penetrated deeper into claims that have actually reached court in order to analyse judicial reasoning pertaining to both breach of duty and causation. Given the increased pressures that GPs now face, these are important questions to consider. It is against this backdrop that this article seeks to present the findings of an empirical investigation into a number of reported clinical negligence claims brought against GPs. This analysis provides an original contribution to the developing academic discussion surrounding the changing nature of the doctor–patient relationship, and how it has come to be viewed in the eyes of the law. It also assesses the extent to which judges have become more receptive to protecting patient rights through the law of negligence, engaging in the expanding discourse concerning judicial deference to medical decision-making. It is argued that judges should sometimes show a greater propensity to question expert medical testimony in support of GPs, because some of the issues GPs typically face are less complex than in other clinical negligence cases involving technical areas of medicine, and that causation does not appear to be such a key factor in defeating patient claims. The work also provides useful guidance for GPs and their advisers in respect of where liability is most likely to be founded and how behaviour can be modified accordingly to reduce the chances of being sued.

Involving Minors in Medical Decision Making: Understanding Ethical Issues in Assent and Refusal of Care by Minors

2018 ◽  
Vol 38 (05) ◽  
pp. 533-538 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abigail Lang ◽  
Erin Paquette
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Pediatric Patients ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Patient Relationship

AbstractWhen caring for minors, the clinician–patient relationship becomes more ethically complex by the inclusion of parents in the clinician–parent–patient triad. As they age, children become more capable of participating in the decision-making process. This involvement may lead them to either accept or refuse proposed care, both of which are ethically acceptable positions when the minor's capacity to participate in decision making is carefully considered in the context of their age, development, and overall health. Certain conditions may be more likely to impact their capacity for participation, but it is important for clinicians to avoid categorical presumption that minors of a certain age or with certain conditions are incapable of participating in decisions regarding their care. Understanding the ethical bases for decision making in pediatric patients and considerations for the involvement of minors who both assent to and refuse proposed treatment will equip clinicians to respect the growing autonomy of minor patients.

scholarly journals "Doctor Knows Best"

2021 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Dylan Mirek Popowicz
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision Making ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Patient Relationship ◽  
Medical Practitioners ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
Decision Making Processes ◽  
Based Medicine

We often consider medical practitioners to be epistemic authorities: “Doctor knows best,” as the saying goes. The place of expert judgment in evidence-based medicine hierarchies, and the crucial role of patient preferences and values in medical decision-making, however, pose problems for making sense of such authority. I argue that there is an account of such medical epistemic authority that does justice to the complexities of the doctor–patient relationship, while maintaining that medical practitioners hold an epistemically privileged position. Such a view can better inform medical practice by clearly illuminating the distinct roles of patients and doctors in decision-making processes.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document