Search

The number of women involved with forensic mental health systems internationally is rising, however, limited research has explored the characteristics of those assessed for criminal responsibility. We investigated the demographic, psychiatric, and criminological characteristics of women recommended as eligible or ineligible for the defence of Not Criminally Responsible (NCR) on account of mental disorder following a criminal responsibility assessment in Central Canada. Data were collected through retrospective chart reviews of court-ordered criminal responsibility assessments for 109 women referred for evaluations between 2003 and 2019. Accused were an average age of 34.55 years, predominately identified as Indigenous (37.7%) or Caucasian (20.8%), and had often been charged with assault (47.7%). Women identified in the reports as NCR-eligible were significantly more likely to be employed, experience delusions during the index offence, and have expert reports linking their mental health symptoms to NCR legal criteria. They were also significantly less likely to have a personality disorder, substance-related diagnosis, or have used substances during the index offence. Delusions during the index offence significantly predicted assessment recommendations when controlling for age at assessment order, current substance-related diagnosis, and whether the expert report linked mental health symptoms to NCR legal criteria. Findings indicate the key factors considered by forensic mental health professionals when conducting criminal responsibility assessments with women. Meaningful differences exist between women identified as NCR-eligible and ineligible, with findings illustrating who may be more likely to receive services within the Canadian forensic mental health system., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest None., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

As international laws on physician aid in dying (PAD) evolve, the question of permitting PAD in non-terminal illness, and in sole psychiatric illness, is under intense debate. In jurisdictions where PAD is permissible, certain safeguards and eligibility requirements must be met for all patients making a PAD request, and one of these requirements is that the patient have sound decision-making capacity with respect to the request. Legal criteria already exist for the determination of capacity, and they are quite similar between different jurisdictions. In current debates about the question of psychiatric PAD, one concern that has been raised is that cognitive distortions in mental disorders may affect a patient's decision-making capacity. At the same time, it has been established that all persons, with or without a mental disorder, experience cognitive distortions. If cognitive distortions are ubiquitous, it is likely that the severity and frequency of cognitive distortions is dimensional rather than categorical, between samples with and without mental illness. Furthermore, currently, there is no requirement for a formalized evaluation of cognitive distortions as part of capacity assessment for any type of medical decision, including PAD decisions. The current paper examines the literature related to cognitive distortions in mental disorders and in healthy populations. It proposes that the existence of cognitive distortions, alone, cannot be used as an argument for a blanket exclusion of psychiatric PAD. It therefore concludes that further research and ethical analysis should be undertaken to examine the impact of cognitive distortions on decision-making for consequential medical decisions, including PAD, in patients with and without mental disorders., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest JD is a member of the Clinicians' Advisory Council for Dying With Dignity Canada. There is no financial reimbursement for this role., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Advance decision making (ADM) in mental health is supported by stakeholders but faces significant barriers. These must be overcome, not least to support the UK government's commitment to introduce statutory mental health ADM in England and Wales., Aims: To build understanding and address the gap between aspirations for ADM and actuality, with feasible co-produced ADM resources., Methods: We used focus groups and consultation to explore experience and views of stakeholders on ADM processes and materials. Discussions included feedback on an ADM template which was adapted accordingly throughout the research process., Results: Between September 2017 and December 2019, 94 individuals, representing stakeholders advised on design and process of ADM, alongside wider discussion at stakeholder events. Collaborative ADM was universally supported. Valued outcomes were diverse and combining aspirations with practicality required resolving dilemmas. A prototype template and guidance, the PACT (Preferences and Advance decisions for Crisis and Treatment) was co-produced, designed to help manage fluctuating mental capacity through collaborative decision making. The PACT enables direct engagement with medico-legal frameworks, with provision to facilitate person-centred assessments, treatment refusals and requests. Resources including supported engagement and cross-agency awareness and accessibility were seen as essential., Conclusion: Our research confirms high stakeholder motivation to engage in ADM is hampered by multiple barriers. We identified enabling conditions for ADM and co-produced an ADM template and guidance which supports achievement of a range of valued outcomes. Further developments to support and evaluate the process of implementation are now needed to prepare for statutory change., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None. Alex Ruck Keene was the legal adviser to the Independent Review of the Mental Health Act., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

In the course of a few short weeks, many of the established legal frameworks relating to decision-making in England & Wales in respect of those with impaired decision-making capacity have been ripped up, or apparently rendered all but unusable. Although the Mental Capacity Act 2005 itself has not been amended, the impact of other legislation (especially the Coronavirus Act 2020) means that duties towards those with impaired decision-making capacity have been radically changed. This article reflects the experience of a practising barrister in England & Wales grappling with the impact of COVID-19 upon the Mental Capacity Act 2005 across a range of fields in the weeks after the world appeared to change in mid-March 2020., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Cognitive assessment is central to the evaluation of testamentary capacity. Such assessment is currently performed in a subjective, unreliable and non-standardized manner. Dementia, a cognitive illness, poses one of the largest threats to testamentary capacity in modern society. A better understanding of the ways in which dementia related cognitive impairment can affect a testator's ability to meet the relevant legal criteria to make a will is needed. A review of the literature over the past ten years focusing on what cognitive abilities are required to satisfy the legal criteria for testamentary capacity has highlighted an alarming scarcity of work in this area. There is little discussion spanning beyond general acknowledgement of the importance of memory and executive function. The specifics of how cognitive impairment impacts the four limbs of Banks v Goodfellow are rarely addressed. Several additional areas of cognitive function of importance to assessing testamentary capacity are the subject of this article., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Respect for the sexual, reproductive, and relational choices of women with learning disabilities remains unrealised to date, despite the autonomy-based focus of mental capacity law in England and Wales as well as the UN Convention for the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Instead, such women appear trapped within a triple-bind - where they not only act in ways that might reinforce oppressive norms around gender and disability, but they are mentally incapable of even making such self-subjugating choices. The triple-bind emerges for two reasons: first, learning disability is understood as an essentialist property that determines action; second, the normative logic of feminism and the social model of disability is bound to the binary between emancipation - subjugation, which excludes the nuanced and ambiguous agency of women with learning disabilities as a result. What is needed instead is an alternative framework of female agency that can accommodate a mode of ambivalence, indifference, inhabitation, and at times, complicity - in other words, instances where women make choices that appear contrary to their emancipation from disabling, patriarchal norms or relationships. Women with learning disabilities navigate a complex nexus of norms, power relations, and relational connections, some of which are coercive and oppressive, yet simultaneously subjectively affirming and enabling. I argue for an alternative analytical framework of female agency in order to accommodate how women with learning disabilities undertake the complex negotiation of power and social norms, as well as render visible their agency in their sexual, relational, and reproductive choices., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Purpose: Arrangements for the management of mentally disordered offenders vary widely across countries, as do rates of imprisonment and detention in forensic-psychiatric settings of such individuals. This study aims to quantify the characteristics of offenders detained in forensic-psychiatric settings in Germany over a 15 year period from 1995 and compare these with those sentenced to imprisonment over the same period., Methods: Using official national statistical data, the index offences, demographic characteristics and criminal histories for all individuals convicted to forensic-psychiatric detention during the study period are described together with changes over time. This group was then compared with offenders convicted to a prison sentence of at least two years in the same time period for equivalent offences., Results: Relevant differences and similarities between the two treatment groups were identified. Compared to offenders in prison, those in forensic care were older, with a higher proportion of women and a lower proportion of those with foreign backgrounds. Significant previous offending and levels of diminished responsibility were present in both groups., Conclusions: These findings provide data for future comparative research and indicate potential opportunities for earlier intervention to prevent trajectories into more serious offending, particularly in young people and those with mental disorder., (Copyright © 2019. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

This article explores the vulnerability that is created when legal capacity is denied to women and disabled women. It argues that vulnerability is largely contingent on social constructs - as opposed to being an inherent quality of disability or gender. It discusses barriers to the exercise of legal capacity that women and disabled women experience - such as limitations on reproductive choice, higher rates of substituted decision-making, and unique experiences with forced mental health treatment. It then explores evidence that such barriers are disempowering and can leave women and disabled women vulnerable to abuse and marginalisation. It explores financial, physical and sexual abuse that can occur as a result of this vulnerability. Finally, it concludes that autonomy and power are inextricably linked and can be essential for minimising vulnerability., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Despite the central role in criminal trials, there is little research on the decision-making processes of experts in forensic psychiatry. We aimed to investigate the role of sociodemographic, psychopathological, and criminological characteristics in forensic psychiatric decisions on criminal responsibility and social dangerousness in criminal trials. We analyzed 302 forensic psychiatric reports provided by 16 forensic psychiatrists from the North, Central and Southern Italy. Defendants' psychiatric symptom severity was evaluated through the 24-item Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS), the Clinical Global Impression (CGI) scale and the Global Assessment of Functioning (GAF). Defendants judged not criminally responsible (Not-CRDs) presented with more severe psychiatric symptoms (positive symptoms, negative symptoms, manic excitement / disorganization), were more likely to be female, to be affected by a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, or bipolar spectrum disorder and to have had a higher number of previous psychiatric treatments and previous involuntary hospitalizations compared to their criminally responsible counterparts. Not-CRDs affected by a schizophrenia spectrum disorder, personality disorder, with severe psychiatric symptoms and with histories of criminal convictions and more victims were more likely to have received a judgment of social dangerousness. The forensic psychiatric evaluations were carried out on average of 770 days after the time of the crime, which in light of the other results, suggests an effect of the perceptions of the expert on the judgment of responsibility, raising the possibility of time bias on forensic judgments concerning defendants' mental responsibility., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The relationship between age and mental capacity among psychiatry inpatients is not fully understood. We aimed to assess mental capacity for treatment decisions in voluntary and involuntary psychiatry inpatients in Ireland and, in this analysis of our data-set, to elucidate the linear relationship, if any, between linear (as opposed to categorical) mental capacity and age. We used the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T) to assess mental capacity for treatment decisions in 215 psychiatry inpatients (176 voluntary and 39 involuntary) in four psychiatry admission units in Ireland. Mean age was 46.2 years and majorities were male (58.1%), never married (74.0%), unemployed (64.2%) and of Irish ethnicity (87.0%). The most common primary diagnoses were schizophrenia and related disorders (42.8%) followed by affective disorders (36.7%). On multi-variable linear regression analysis, linear mental capacity was significantly associated with voluntary admission status, being employed, having a primary diagnosis other than schizophrenia or a related disorder, and younger age. Together, these factors accounted for 44.4% of the variance in mental capacity between participants. Overall, while increased age is associated with diminished mental capacity, other factors appear more significant, including involuntary admission status which is likely an indicator of symptom severity. There is a need for further research to (a) elucidate the relationships between the significant factors identified in this study and the cognitive status of patients (which impacts on assessments of mental capacity); (b) identify and elucidate other factors of likely relevance to mental capacity (e.g. medical illness, medication use); and (c) translate these findings into targeted interventions to support decision-making in clinical practice among psychiatry inpatients, especially those with involuntary status., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Neuroscience has already changed how the law understands an individual's cognitive processes, how those processes shape behavior, and how bio-psychosocial history and neurodevelopmental approaches provide information, which is critical to understanding mental states underlying behavior, including criminal behavior. In this paper, we briefly review the state of forensic assessment of mental conditions in the relative culpability of criminal defendants, focused primarily on the weaknesses of current approaches. We then turn to focus on neuroscience approaches and how they have the potential to improve assessment, but with significant risks and limitations., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Even though the Bush Administration opened the Guantánamo Bay detention facility in 2002 in response to the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, little remains known about how forensic mental health evaluations relate to the process of detainees who are charged before military commissions. This article discusses the laws governing Guantánamo's military commissions system and mental health evaluations. Notably, the US government initially treated detainees as "unlawful enemy combatants" who were not protected under the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture and Other Forms of Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment, allowing for the use of "enhanced interrogation techniques." In subsequent legal documents, however, the US government has excluded evidence obtained through torture, as defined by the US Constitution and the United Nations Convention Against Torture. Using open-source document analysis, this article describes the reasons and outcomes of all forensic mental health evaluations from Guantánamo's opening to 2018. Only thirty of 779 detainees (~3.85%) have ever had charges referred against them to the military commissions, and only nine detainees (~1.16%) have ever received forensic mental health evaluations pertaining to their case. Of these nine detainees, six have alleged mental torture while in US custody. This paper shows that leaders in the United States and Europe should consider whether counterterrorism policies that supersede traditional health and human rights complicate the ability of future governments to prosecute cases when successive leaders change laws, a pertinent consideration as North American and European states grapple with the return of foreign fighters., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Demand for legal capacity assessments is increasing, especially assessments of financial capacity for estate planning purposes such as wills and enduring powers of attorney. This article proposes that such assessments will be improved by taking greater account of the client experience, including individual and relational factors and processes, and considering the practice framework. A literature review was undertaken with a two-fold aim: firstly, to understand the fundamentally important perspective (inclusive of these experiences) of the evaluee; and, secondly, to identify potential improvements in the capacity assessment process with a view to informing best practice. No studies were identified that directly addressed the individual perspective in capacity assessments. Case studies and commentaries that indirectly discuss the individual perspective were therefore analysed to identify any potential issues and recommendations. This analysis showed that individual factors, such as the evaluee's functional and disease status, and relational factors, such as trust, should be considered by examiners. This review demonstrates that there is a significant gap in the literature examining the individual's perspective and experiences in capacity assessments, as well as, any impact this may have on the assessment process and outcomes. Further research into this vital perspective is needed so that the experiences of those undergoing assessments can help inform best practice and ensure that optimal processes are adopted when assessing the capacity necessary to make legally recognised decisions. This article examines the importance of the participant perspective and experiences in capacity assessments through the novel lens of therapeutic jurisprudence. It includes practice suggestions and provides the direction for this future research., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This study aimed to assess mental capacity for treatment decisions among psychiatry inpatients in Ireland and explore the relationship, if any, between mental capacity and various demographics and clinical variables. We assessed mental capacity for treatment decisions in 215 psychiatry inpatients in four psychiatry admission units. Almost half of the participants were female and the most common diagnoses were schizophrenia or a related disorder and affective disorders. Overall, 1.9% of participants lacked mental capacity for treatment decisions; 50.7% had partial mental capacity; and 47.4% had full mental capacity. These proportions did not differ between female and male patients. On multi-variable regression analysis, greater mental capacity was significantly associated with, in order of strength of association, voluntary admission status, Irish ethnicity, being employed and younger age. However, while these relationships were statistically significant (i.e. were unlikely to have occurred by chance), together they accounted for just 27.6% of the variance in mental capacity between participants (i.e. they were not very strong). The relatively high rate of "partial mental capacity" identified in our work suggests that decision-making supports are likely to be of substantial importance in assisting psychiatry inpatients making decisions about treatment, especially involuntary inpatients whose mental capacity is especially likely to be impaired. Future research could usefully clarify and quantify the role of cognitive and other factors in relation to the unexplained variance (72.4%) in mental capacity identified in this study; and explore which models of supported decision-making are most likely to assist the substantial proportion (50.7%) of psychiatry inpatients who have partial mental capacity for treatment decisions, as well as the minority lacking such mental capacity (1.9%)., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article critically assesses the way a certain court has determined the capacity of a person diagnosed with anorexia to refuse medical treatment. It is shown that when making this determination, the court has adopted a process of circular reasoning, meaning anyone with the diagnosis will be found to lack capacity to refuse its treatment. This circular reasoning means that indicia of capacity that ought to be considered by the court is ignored. The result is a procedure in which the anorexic patient has no voice, and an outcome against which he or she has no effective legal recourse. This problem, it is argued, can be overcome in two ways. Firstly, courts must make sure that the 'functional' test of capacity is properly applied, meaning any finding of incapacity must rest on evidenced deficits in decision-making ability. Secondly, courts must properly engage with the subjective reasoning of the person making the treatment refusal., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: Since the 1990s, standardized competency to stand trial assessment measures have been developed to improve the reliability and validity of expert assessment and opinion in legal settings. This study aimed to meta-analyze the psychometric properties of the four 'second generation' assessment tools: the MacCAT-CA, MacCAT-FP, ECST-R and CAST*MR., Method: A systematic search of published and unpublished studies was undertaken on PsycNet, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Science Direct up until February 2018. Test manuals were sourced and attempts at finding grey literature included contacting study authors and test developers., Results: Eleven studies were included in the final analysis. The MacCAT-CA, ECST-R and CAST*MR demonstrated acceptable subscale internal consistencies and interrater reliability. The MacCAT-CA and CAST*MR discriminated between competent and incompetent defendants with large effects. The MacCAT-FP had insufficient reliability data and poor discrimination. There was insufficient data to meta-analyze the factor structure, sensitivity, specificity, or effect sizes between types of clinical presentation on any tool., Conclusions: Very few studies have investigated the psychometric properties of the selected tools. Many studies were excluded for not providing original data or simply re-reporting the psychometric properties stated in test manuals. Whilst the MacCAT-CA and ECST-R have promising psychometric properties, ongoing construct validation is required., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Most of the late 20th century wave of reforms in mental capacity or competence law were predicated upon the so-called 'functional' model of mental capacity, asking not merely whether a person had a mental disorder or disability but rather whether they were capable of making a specific decision (or decisions) at a specific point of time. This model is now under sustained challenge, most notably from the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and this challenge has focused a spotlight on the difficulty of applying the legally 'neat' concepts of the functional model of mental capacity across the full complex spectrum of human life. This paper presents a review, in two parts, of the first ten years of the Court of Protection, a specialist mental capacity court in England and Wales which applies a functional model of mental capacity. The first part outlines the history of the functional model in England and Wales, and the development of this specialist mental capacity court (Court of Protection), created by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The second part presents an empirical and case-based study of 40 published cases of capacity disputes presented to the Court of Protection, or to the Court of Appeal on appeal from the Court of Protection, during the first ten years of its existence. The authors found that in 70% of cases the subject of proceedings (or P) had either a learning disability or dementia, and the court ruled on P's capacity for a wide range of issues, most commonly residence, care and contact. The judge considered the support principle, or whether practical steps were taken to maximise P's capacity, in 23 of 40 (57.5%) cases. The subject P was determined to have capacity in 13 cases, to lack capacity in 22 cases, and in 5 cases P was found to have and lack capacity for different issues before the court. The functional inability to use or weigh relevant information was most commonly cited by the judge, being cited in all but 2 cases in which P was determined to lack capacity and inabilities were cited. The propensity for the system to learn was shown by an increase in the proportion of cases which considered the 'causative nexus' from 2013, when a Court of Appeal case emphasised that impairment must not merely be present alongside functional inability but must be the causal basis of inability. The authors conclude that whilst the Court of Protection is still on a learning curve, its work provides a powerful illustration of what taking capacity seriously looks like, both inside and outside the courtroom. The implications for judges, lawyers and psychiatrists that can be drawn from the study are generalisable to other comparable socio-legal frameworks in which mental capacity or competence plays a role and is likely to do so for the foreseeable future., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

India's new mental health legislation, the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017, was commenced on 29 May 2018 and seeks explicitly to comply with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It grants a legally binding right to mental healthcare to over 1.3 billion people, one sixth of the planet's population. Key measures include (a) new definitions of 'mental illness' and 'mental health establishment'; (b) revised consideration of 'capacity' in relation to mental healthcare (c) 'advance directives' to permit persons with mental illness to direct future care; (d) 'nominated representatives', who need not be family members; (e) the right to mental healthcare and broad social rights for the mentally ill; (f) establishment of governmental authorities to oversee services; (g) Mental Health Review Boards to review admissions and other matters; (h) revised procedures for 'independent admission' (voluntary admission), 'supported admission' (admission and treatment without patient consent), and 'admission of minor'; (i) revised rules governing treatment, restraint and research; and (j) de facto decriminalization of suicide. Key challenges relate to resourcing both mental health services and the new structures proposed in the legislation, the appropriateness of apparently increasingly legalized approaches to care (especially the implications of potentially lengthy judicial proceedings), and possible paradoxical effects resulting in barriers to care (e.g. revised licensing requirements for general hospital psychiatry units). There is ongoing controversy about specific measures (e.g. the ban on electro-convulsive therapy without muscle relaxants and anaesthesia), reflecting a need for continued engagement with stakeholders including patients, families, the Indian Psychiatric Society and non-governmental organisations. Despite these challenges, the new legislation offers substantial potential benefits not only to India but, by example, to other countries that seek to align their laws with the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and improve the position of the mentally ill., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Against a backdrop of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities having been in place for over a decade, discussions about legal capacity, the relevance of mental capacity and the shift to supported decision-making, continue to develop. A panel event was held at the King's Transnational Law Summit in 2018 with the aim of understanding the contours of the dialogue around these issues. This paper presents the contributions of the panel members, a summary of the discussion that took place and a synthesis of the views expressed. It suggests that divergent conclusions in this area turn on disagreements about: the consequences of sometimes limiting legal capacity for people with mental disabilities; the emphasis placed on particular values; the basis for mental capacity assessments; and the scope for supported decision-making. It also highlights the connection between resources, recognition and freedoms for people with mental disabilities, and therefore the issues that arise when discussion in this area is limited to legal capacity in the context of decision-making., (Copyright © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Internationally, millions of arrests occur each year, but very little is known about how suspects are informed regarding their rights as the accused and whether these rights are accurately understood. Concerns regarding accurate comprehension are further heightened for suspects with severe mental disorders (SMDs). In the United States alone, it is estimated ≥300,000 mentally disordered suspects are arrested annually and Mirandized (i.e., given American warnings regarding the rights of the accused). Despite this widespread prevalence, only two published studies have specifically targeted impaired Miranda comprehension for persons with SMDs, and none has focused directly on Miranda reasoning and waiver decisions. The current study examined both Miranda comprehension and reasoning for 85 adult inpatients recruited from a private psychiatric hospital with three major findings. First, inpatients extremely poor Miranda recall, averaging only 21.3% of the total warning. Second, none appeared to exhibit adequate abilities for Miranda reasoning. Third, an initial waiver of rights always led to a confession within several minutes of questioning. These findings and methodological issues are discussed for the United States as well as other countries., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

One hundred sixty-three homicide case files from The Center for Forensic Psychiatry in Ypsilanti, Michigan were examined for evidence of factors associated with the outcomes of Competency to Stand Trial (CST) evaluations. Of the socio-demographic, legal, and clinical factors investigated, only three were significant. Defendants with lower IQs were more likely to be found incompetent to stand trial, and those with more property crime arrests were more likely to be found competent to stand trial. Additionally, defendants who were found incompetent to stand trial were more likely to be accused of killing an intimate or relative., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The first part of the series of three articles on posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in Court to appear in the journal reviews the history of the construct of PTSD and its presentation in the DSM-5 (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition; American Psychiatric Association, 2013) and the ICD-11 (International Classification of Diseases, 11th Edition; World Health Organization, 2018). There are 20 symptoms of PTSD in the DSM-5. PTSD symptoms are arranged into a four-cluster model, which has received partial support in the literature. Other four-factor models have been found that fit the data even better than that of the DSM-5. There is a five-factor dysphoria model and two six-factor models that have been found to fit better the DSM-5 PTSD symptoms. Finally, research is providing support for a hybrid seven-factor model. An eighth factor on dissociation seems applicable to the minority of people who express the dissociative subtype. At the epidemiological level, individuals can expect trauma exposure to take place about 70% over one's lifetime. Also, traumatic exposure leads to traumatic reactions in about 10% of cases, with PTSD being a primary diagnosis for trauma. Once initiated, PTSD becomes prolonged in about 10% of cases. Polytrauma and comorbidities complicate these prevalence statistics. Moreover, the possibility of malingered PTSD presents confounds. However, the estimate for malingered PTSD varies extensively, from 1 to 50%, so that the estimate is too imprecise for use in court without further research. This first article in the series of three articles appearing in the journal on PTSD in Court concludes with discussion of complications related to comorbidities and heterogeneities, in particular. For example, PTSD and its comorbidities can be expressed in over one quintillion ways. This complexity in its current structure in the DSM-5 speaks to the individual differences involved in its expression., (Crown Copyright © 2016. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Veterans Treatment Courts (VTCs) were created to: (1) address issues unique to U.S. Military Veterans; and, (2) where possible, avoid punishing veterans for crimes that may have been committed as a direct result of their mental conditions (e.g., Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and/or Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)). Little research has been undertaken to ascertain whether VTCs are accomplishing their intended goals. To that end, the present case study examined three operating VTCs in order to determine if they are meeting their objectives. The research provides further information about VTC operations and recidivism rates. The research further reveals that, while the three VTCs examined are arguably benefitting veterans, they are not reaching a greater part of the population due largely to the gatekeeping role of VTC prosecutors, and the rigid eligibility requirements established by the three VTCs for veteran participation. Consequently, it's possible that the low recidivism rates reported by the three VTCs examined are inflated or constitute false positives., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Psychiatric expert testimony is challenging in cases of violence when the accused person submits a defence that he or she was so overwhelmed by emotions triggered by an upsetting event that his or her violent behaviour was an uncontrollable consequence of the emotions. This defence is usually presented in terms of an automatism particularly not attributed to a mental disorder. Clouding testimony in these cases is the various definitions of both automatism and mental disorder-definitions by which the jurisprudential distinction is made between a sane and an insane automatism, or pathological and non-pathological incapacity (NPCI). To avert testimony that is tainted from the very beginning by the lack of agreed definitions, this article proposes that psychiatrists focus in their assessment and testimony on particularly the behaviour as being distinct from the jurisprudential concerns whether that behaviour constitutes an automatism and whether it is (not) attributed to a mental disorder. This focus on the behaviour affords clarity by which the properties of the behaviour may be examined theoretically and clinically in terms of behaviour therapy, specifying accordingly its antecedents, consequences, topography, intensity, latency, duration, frequency, and quality. So informed, the behaviour that underpins NPCI and automatism is described here as emotionally triggered involuntary violent behaviour about which testimony may be given distinct from whether the behaviour is (not) causally attributed to a mental disorder, and from jurisprudential concerns with accountability., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Individual of legal age with schizophrenia presenting anosognosia was abandoned, as a result of a court decision. Close family members were not allowed to provide medical follow-up, treatment, protection regarding his vulnerability, and preserve the dignity of their loved one. The issue was the court's prioritization of the autonomy of the individual over his mental health status. The purpose of this case study was to identify the pitfalls of a court case seeking medical follow-up and treatment for a family member with schizophrenia and anosognosia. The method was qualitative and the design was descriptive and instrumental, linking the law to the life experience resulting from the procedures for its implementation. This study examined the difference between clinical and medical-legal evaluation of the examinee. The application of the Therapeutic Jurisprudence principles to the high number of schizophrenia cases with anosognosia, the abandonment of the mentally ill, and family crisis call healthcare providers and the Judiciary for an improvement action of the process of guardianship., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Laws governing the detention and treatment of mentally disordered offenders (MDOs) vary widely across Europe, yet little information is available about the features of these laws and their comparative advantages and disadvantages. The purpose of this article is to compare the legal framework governing detention in forensic psychiatric care in three European countries with long-established services for MDOs, England, Germany and the Netherlands. A literature review was conducted alongside consultation with experts from each country. We found that the three countries differ in several areas, including criteria for admission, review of detention, discharge process, the concept of criminal responsibility, service provision and treatment philosophy. Our findings suggest a profound difference in how each country relates to MDOs, with each approach contributing to different pathways and potentially different outcomes for the individual. Hopefully making these comparisons will stimulate debate and knowledge exchange on an international level to aid future research and the development of best practice in managing this population., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Data were examined from an archival sample of Competency to Stand Trial (CST) reports of 200 consecutive New York City pre-trial defendants evaluated over a five-month period. Approximately a fourth of defendants in the present study were immigrants; many required the assistance of interpreters. The examiners conducting the CST evaluation diagnosed approximately half of the defendants with a primary diagnosis of a psychotic disorder and deemed over half not competent. Examiners reached the same conclusion about competency in 96% of cases, about the presence of a psychotic disorder in 91% of cases, and affective disorder in 85% of cases. No significant differences between psychologists and psychiatrists were found for rates of competency/incompetency opinions. Compared to those deemed competent, defendants deemed not competent had significantly higher rates of prior psychiatric hospitalization and diagnosis of psychotic illness at the time of the CST evaluation but lower rates of reported substance abuse., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Introduction: In Belgium, offenders who are deemed criminally irresponsible for their criminal actions because of mental illness or intellectual disability are subject to a specific safety measure with the dual objective of protecting society and providing mandated care to the offender. While Belgian law requires that offenders who are deemed criminally irresponsible should be in a hospital, clinic or other appropriate institution outside of prison, in practice, about one-third of all such offenders still reside in prison. Whether imprisoned or living in settings outside prison, there is a dearth of knowledge on the characteristics of the aging population among the criminally irresponsible offenders., Objective: This paper aimed to explore the characteristics of older offenders categorized as criminally irresponsible in Flanders (northern Belgium) with a focus on the differences between imprisoned older offenders deemed criminally irresponsible and their peers who are residing outside prison., Method: A retrospective case note study of all offenders deemed criminally irresponsible, >60years of age (n=174), was conducted in the four Commissions of Social Defense, which implement the procedure in the case of those deemed criminally irresponsible in Flanders. The files were screened for (1) demographic characteristics, (2) criminal history as well as (3) mental and physical health issues., Results: One-fourth of the population were >70years of age. A total of 30.5% were in prison. Compared to their non-imprisoned peers, the imprisoned offenders had a history of having committed more serious violent crimes towards persons, such as homicides and sexual crimes. In addition, imprisoned older offenders categorized as criminally irresponsible are characterized more explicitly by personality traits that are likely to reduce their chances of being transferred to more appropriate settings in the community., Implications: A comprehensive and systematic screening of all older offenders deemed criminally irresponsible with regard to health needs and social functioning, including age-related deterioration, alcoholism, and other causes of social disadvantages, is warranted to detect potentially hidden problems., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The use of detention for psychiatric treatment is widespread and sometimes necessary. International human rights law requires a legal framework to safeguard the rights to liberty and personal integrity by preventing arbitrary detention. However, research suggests that extra-legal factors may influence decisions to detain. This article presents observational and interview data to describe how decisions to detain are made in practice in one jurisdiction (England and Wales) where a tension between policy and practice has been described. The analysis shows that practitioners mould the law into 'practical criteria' that appear to form a set of operational criteria for identifying cases to which the principle of soft paternalism may be applied. Most practitioners also appear willing, albeit often reluctantly, to depart from their usual reliance on the principle of soft paternalism and authorise detention of people with the capacity to refuse treatment, in order to prevent serious harm. We propose a potential resolution for the tension between policy and practice: two separate legal frameworks to authorise detention, one with a suitable test of capacity, used to enact soft paternalism, and the other to provide legal justification for detention for psychiatric treatment of the small number of people who retain decision-making capacity but nonetheless choose to place others at risk by refusing treatment. This separation of detention powers into two systems, according to the principle that justifies the use of detention would be intellectually coherent, consistent with human rights instruments and, being consistent with the apparent moral sentiments of practitioners, less prone to idiosyncratic interpretations in practice., (Copyright © 2016 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

The present report is the result of research on the causes of insanity or issuing opinions about the causes of insanity or diminished sanity perpetrators in criminal proceedings conducted in Poland (CEE). Research has shown the impact that has, in fact, use or abuse of alcohol and other alcoholic diseases on the status of the accused in criminal proceedings. This publication presents not only the results but also the basic regulations - valid in Poland and in other European countries - with respect to the responsibility of the perpetrators insane, with diminished sanity and being in a state of inebriation at the time of committing a criminal act., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Mental health courts represent a key component of contemporary responses to mental illness and disability in the criminal justice system, and yet there is uncertainty about how these courts should balance their punishment and treatment roles. This paper reports an analysis of interviews with court professionals which considers their understanding of the rationale underpinning an Australian mental health court, its effectiveness in achieving its criminal justice and clinical goals, and of broader notions of therapeutic jurisprudence. This reveals considerable support for diversionary mental health court programs of this type and professional confidence that this type of program is effective. However, the analysis also highlights conflict in the practice frameworks of the different professional groups who regularly contribute to the operations of the court. Suggestions to enhance service delivery are offered., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Causality (or causation) is central to every legal case, yet its underlying philosophical, legal, and psychological definitions and conceptions vary. In the criminal context, it refers to establishing the responsibility of the perpetrator of the criminal act at issue in terms of the person's mental state (mens rea), and whether the insanity defense applies. In the forensic disability and related context, it refers to whether the index event is a material or contributing cause in the multifactorial array that led to the psychological condition at issue. In both the criminal and tort contexts, the legal test is a counterfactual one. For the former, it refers to whether the outcome involved would have resulted absent the act (e.g., in cases of simultaneous criminal lethal action, which one is the but-for responsible one). For the latter, it concerns whether the claimed psychological condition would be present only because of the incident at issue. The latter event at issue is distinguished from the criminal one by its negligence compared to the voluntary intent in the criminal case. The psychological state of the perpetrator of criminal conduct can be analyzed from a biopsychosocial perspective as much as the civil one. In this regard, in the civil case, such as in forensic disability and related assessments, pre-existing, precipitating, and perpetuating factors need to be considered causally, with personal and social resilience and protective factors added, as well. In the criminal context, the same biopsychosocial model applies, but with mental competence and voluntariness added as a critical factor. The advent of neurolaw has led to use of neuroscience in court, but it risks reducing the complexity of criminal cases to unifactorial, biological models., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Personality disorder is associated with self-harm and suicide, as well as criminal offending and violence towards others. These behaviours overlap when the means chosen to self-harm or attempt suicide put others at risk. In such circumstances, an individual's mental state at one and the same time may be deemed to meet the conditions for criminal responsibility, and to warrant involuntary hospital admission. I explore this tension in how people with personality disorder are treated at the hands of the criminal and civil law respectively in England and Wales: they may be deemed sufficiently mentally well to be punished for their crimes, but not deemed sufficiently mentally well to retain the right to make their own decisions about matters of serious importance to their own lives, including whether or not to continue them. The article divides into four sections. After introducing this tension, Section 2 sketches the nature of personality disorder and the psychology underlying self-directed and other-directed violence. Section 3 addresses the questions of whether people with personality disorder who are violent, whether towards self or others, typically meet the conditions for criminal responsibility and mental capacity respectively, considering in particular whether their underlying desires and values, or their emotional distress, affect their mental capacity to make treatment decisions. Section 4 then considers what we might do to address the tension, within the confines of current legislation. Drawing on The Review of the Mental Health Act 1983, I argue that we are ethically justified in involuntarily admitting to hospital people with personality disorder who pose a serious risk to themselves only if we simultaneously undertake to offer genuine help for their future, in the form of appropriate treatment, social support, and better life opportunities - a provision which, as things stand in England and Wales, is sorely lacking., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Recent English cases have set a very low threshold for the capacity to consent to sexual activity, and the Court of Appeal in IM v LM (2014) has held that "the ability to use and weigh information is unlikely to loom large in the evaluation of consent to sexual relations." Such cases significantly affect the legal status of such activities involving persons diagnosed with a learning disability (LD), an autistic spectrum disorder (ASD) or other neurodiverse (ND) conditions. A principal focus on two cases in particular-IM v LM (2014) and A Local Authority v TZ (no 2) (2014)-supports the argument that the current test needs reframing from a relationship-centred perspective, in order to reflect an evidence-based model of sexual decision-making. Relevant training for persons diagnosed as LD, ASD, or ND is essential in order to promote socio-sexual competence. This is critical for resolving existing tensions between (1) sexual rights guaranteed in international agreements; (2) criminal law provisions and local authorities' obligations to protect the vulnerable; and (3) sexual health concerns., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Supported decision making (SDM) refers to the process of supporting people, whose decision making ability may be impaired, to make decisions and so promote autonomy and prevent the need for substitute decision making. There have been developments in SDM but mainly in the areas of intellectual disabilities and end-of-life care rather than in mental health. The main aim of this review was to provide an overview of the available evidence relevant to SDM and so facilitate discussion of how this aspect of law, policy and practice may be further developed in mental health services. The method used for this review was a Rapid Evidence Assessment which involved: developing appropriate search strategies; searching relevant databases and grey literature; then assessing, including and reviewing relevant studies. Included studies were grouped into four main themes: studies reporting stakeholders' views on SDM; studies identifying barriers to the implementation of SDM; studies highlighting ways to improve implementation; and studies on the impact of SDM. The available evidence on implementation and impact, identified by this review, is limited but there are important rights-based, effectiveness and pragmatic arguments for further developing and researching SDM for people with mental health problems., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Australia lacks a satisfactory, national paradigm for assessing legal capacity in the context of testamentary, enduring power of attorney and advance care directive documents. Capacity assessments are currently conducted on an ad hoc basis by legal and/or medical professionals. The reliability of the assessment process is subject to the skill set and mutual understanding of the legal and/or medical professional conducting the assessment. There is a growth in the prevalence of diseases such as dementia. Such diseases impact upon cognition which increasingly necessitates collaboration between the legal and medical professions when assessing the effect of mentally disabling conditions upon legal capacity. Miscommunication and lack of understanding between legal and medical professionals involved could impede the development of a satisfactory paradigm. This article will discuss legal capacity assessment in Australia and how to strengthen the relationship between legal and medical professionals involved in capacity assessments. The development of a national paradigm would promote consistency and transparency of process, helping to improve the professional relationship and maximising the principles of autonomy, participation and dignity., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Mental health experts are increasingly being utilised by the criminal justice system to provide assistance to courts during the assessment of issues falling beyond the knowledge and/or experience of the courts. A particular domain where the assistance of qualified psychiatrists and psychologists is becoming essential is where the defence of pathological criminal incapacity falls to be assessed. Mental health professionals testifying during trials where the defence of pathological criminal incapacity is raised will present opinion evidence which is one of the exceptions to the rule of inadmissibility of opinion evidence. Mental health professionals providing their opinion evidence are, however, prohibited from expressing opinions on so-called "ultimate issues" upon which only the court may ultimately rule upon. The latter rule is also commonly known in practice as the "ultimate issue" rule which presents multifaceted challenges in respect of the application of the defence of pathological criminal incapacity. In this article, the author assesses the application of the ultimate issue rule with reference to the defence of pathological criminal incapacity as it operates within the South African criminal law context. A comparative analysis is also provided with reference to the rule as it operates in the United States of America and more specifically Federal Rule 704. It is concluded that the ultimate issue rule unnecessarily restricts testimony provided by mental health professionals as such placing a barrier on such evidence. As such, it is argued that the rule is superfluous as it remains within the discretion of the trier of fact to decide as to what weight to attach to such evidence., (Copyright © 2015. Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

The paper discusses the relevance of decision-making models for evaluating the impact of mental disorder on legal responsibility. A three-stage model is presented that analyzes decision making in terms of behavioral control. We argue that understanding dysfunctions in each of the three stages of decision making could provide important insights in the relation between mental disorder and legal responsibility. In particular, it is argued that generating options for action constitutes an important but largely ignored stage of the decision-making process, and that dysfunctions in this early stage might undermine the whole process of making decisions (and thus behavioral control) more strongly than dysfunctions in later stages. Lastly, we show how the presented framework could be relevant to the actual psychiatric assessment of a defendant's decision making within the context of an insanity defense., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In recent years, the number of occupied beds in German forensic-psychiatric hospitals has continued to rise. Diversion refers to the removal of offenders from the criminal justice system at any stage of the procedure and court proceedings. There are no specific diversion programs in Germany but diversion does in fact happen via legal regulations that are based on the construct of legal responsibility. The assessments of responsibility as well as risk are the core tasks of forensic-psychiatric expert witnessing in Germany. Recommendations of an interdisciplinary working group serve as a guide to operationalize this forensic-psychiatric task. These recommendations list formal minimum requirements for expert reports on the question of criminal responsibility and risk assessment as well as minimum standards regarding content and in writing the report., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The experience of hearing a voice in the absence of an appropriate external stimulus, formally termed an auditory verbal hallucination (AVH), may be malingered for reasons such as personal financial gain, or, in criminal cases, to attempt a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity. An accurate knowledge of the phenomenology of AVHs is central to assessing the veracity of claims to such experiences. We begin by demonstrating that some contemporary criminal cases still employ inaccurate conceptions of the phenomenology of AVHs to assess defendants' claims. The phenomenology of genuine, malingered, and atypical AVHs is then examined. We argue that, due to the heterogeneity of AVHs, the use of typical properties of AVHs as a yardstick against which to evaluate the veracity of a defendant's claims is likely to be less effective than the accumulation of instances of defendants endorsing statements of atypical features of AVHs. We identify steps towards the development of a formal tool for this purpose, and examine other conceptual issues pertinent to criminal cases arising from the phenomenology of AVHs., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Proposals to reform fitness to plead legislation have been published by the Law Commission in England and Wales; they include a new test of decision making capacity and a new psychiatric test that has yet to be fully developed. Although proposals have met with some support, there have also been detractors. The history of fitness to plead is reviewed and current case law (including the 1836 Pritchard criteria) is examined. Although existing arrangements have been criticised, this may be attributable to inconsistent practical application, rather than inherent conceptual flaws. The Pritchard test has largely stood the test of time and has emerged relatively unscathed. Fitness to plead is not a medical construct, but rather a legal entity and any new test would be likely to introduce its own difficulties. A capacity based assessment could enhance debate and disagreement and increase court time in many cases, presenting new resource implications with questionable benefit. As the existing Pritchard criteria, amended by case law, already include a five limb test that closely resembles a capacity assessment (ability to plead to the indictment, to understand the course of the proceedings, to instruct a lawyer, to challenge a juror and to understand the evidence) and given the difficulties in introducing a functional test format in other jurisdictions, the Law Commission's proposals should now be set aside, perhaps for another day: reconsideration may be possible some decades hence, pending enhanced scientific developments within psychiatry and better understanding of the mind., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article examines the mental impairment (insanity) defense in the Australian state of Victoria and argues that the defense is successful only when offenders suffer from psychotic mental illnesses. This raises the question about how non-psychotic offenders are dealt with by the courts when they claim 'mental impairment' for serious acts of violence such as homicide, particularly when a relatively large number of perpetrators involved in homicide suffer from non-psychotic illnesses like depression. The analysis shows that depressive illnesses do not reach the threshold for mental impairment (legal insanity) such that they mitigate violent criminal behavior, although they can, arguably, diminish culpability. This article draws upon existing literature, qualitative analysis of two court cases and semi-structured interviews with four legal representatives to make its conclusions., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

The administration of antipsychotic medications to jail and prison inmates involves two related components: conducting the informed consent process in a coercive environment and, where consent is not obtained, forcible administration of medication if needed. In the United States, both involve common law, statutory, and constitutional principles. Obtaining informed consent in correctional institutions is complicated. Patients in correctional institutions lack access to alternate sources of information, and depend on the correctional system completely - a system which they may distrust. This may influence the patient's view of the administering physician. Where consent cannot be obtained, forcible administration may be legally permissible for two primary reasons: to restore a criminal defendant to competency in order to stand trial and to ameliorate severe symptoms of mental disability, particularly when they threaten the safety of self, others, or in some instances, property. The interests at stake for the individual and the government, and the legal standards developed to balance these interests, differ between the two situations. When considering challenges to forcible medication of inmates serving a prison sentence, the United States Supreme Court has treated the interest of the institution in maintaining security as paramount. By contrast, when considering challenges to forcible medication of pretrial detainees, the Court's concern for the fair trial rights guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment has seemingly led it to moderate its emphasis on security. However, this distinction is not stable and may in fact be breaking down, as the recent case of Jared Loughner demonstrates. This article discusses the various federal, state, and international legal standards applicable to both informed consent and forcible medication, and their implementation in the correctional setting, focusing on issues related to the United States., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: This article stems from a larger project which considers ways of improving assessments of capacity and judgements about best interests in connection with people with dementia admitted to acute hospitals with respect to decisions about place of residence., Aims: Our aim is to comment on how assessments of residence capacity are actually performed on general hospital wards compared with legal standards for the assessment of capacity set out in the Mental Capacity Act, 2005 (MCA)., Method: Our findings are grounded in ethnographic ward-based observations and in-depth interviews conducted in three hospital wards, in two hospitals (acute and rehabilitation), within two NHS healthcare trusts in the North of England over a period of nine months between 2008 and 2009. Twenty-nine patient cases were recruited to the study. We also draw from broader conceptions of capacity found in domestic and international legal, medical, ethical and social science literature., Results: Our findings suggest that whilst professionals profess to be familiar with broad legal standards governing the assessment of capacity under the MCA, these standards are not routinely applied in practice in general hospital settings when assessing capacity to decide place of residence on discharge from hospital. We discuss whether the criteria set out in the MCA and the guidance in its Code of Practice are sufficient when assessing residence capacity, given the particular ambiguities and complexities of this capacity., Conclusions: We conclude by suggesting that more specific legal standards are required when assessing capacity in this particular context., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

This article reviews the legal basis for the development of forensic psychiatry in China, the organization of clinical assessments, and training of forensic psychiatrists. Regulations for the management of patients in Ankang hospitals and the role of forensic psychiatrists within the Criminal Justice system are described. The primary role of forensic psychiatrists is to provide expert opinions on competence to stand trial and criminal responsibility in criminal cases. They are increasingly involved in civil court proceedings and tribunals at the request of a range of official agencies. The clinical cases assessed by Chinese forensic psychiatrists are very similar to those of their counterparts in Western countries, but the organizational and legal framework for these assessments reflects a very different system that has evolved independently., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Some older individuals lack sufficient present cognitive and/or emotional ability to make and express autonomous decisions personally. In those situations, health-care providers routinely turn to available formal or informal surrogates who often must apply the best interests standard in making decisions for the incapacitated person. This article contends that defining the best interests standard of surrogate decision-making for older adults in terms of optimal or ideal choices (truly the patient's "best" interests) frequently sets out an unrealizable goal for surrogates to satisfy. Instead, a decision-making standard based on the incapacitated person's "therapeutic" interests is more realistic and hence more honest to adopt and apply from legal, ethical, and medical perspectives., (Copyright © 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

In this paper, the authors (two clinicians with specialized practices in child and adolescent eating disorders and a lawyer who practices health law in Ontario, Canada) review pertinent aspects of clinical capacity assessment, with elaboration of the specific unique and complex issues which shape that assessment in children and adolescents with eating disorders. The relevant Ontario legislation and institutional framework governing consent and capacity in children and adolescents are reviewed. The literature on involuntary treatment and consent and capacity in patients with eating disorders is reviewed. Specific cases involving child and adolescent patients with eating disorders that have been heard by the Ontario Consent and Capacity Board (OCCB) in the past decade are discussed in order to elucidate the Board's views of consent and capacity in this vulnerable and challenging patient population. Strategies to support clinicians' therapeutic alliances with their patients while both are going through what can be a lengthy and potentially adversarial-seeming legal process are also discussed.

Objective: Black and ethnic minorities (BME) are disproportionally represented in western prisons and forensic psychiatric facilities. The authors wished to determine whether patient-related or services-related factors account for this overrepresentation. This study examined the relationship among the assessments of psychological accountability for a crime, treatment recommendations, and ethnicity among persons accused of a crime and suspected of having a mental disorder., Method: We examined all 21,857 pre-trial psychiatric reports requested by Dutch courts between 2000 and 2006. Ethnicity was classified as Dutch native (n=15,004), Black and minority ethnic (BME) groups (n=6202), and Whites from other western countries (n=638). Accountability assessments and treatment recommendations were compared using chi-square tests and logistic regression models, adjusted for demographic, psychiatric, and judiciary characteristics., Results: Among BME and Whites from other western countries, accountability for the crimes committed was more often judged to be at the extreme ends of the spectrum, that is, "fully responsible" or "not responsible." Compulsory admission to a psychiatric hospital was more frequently recommended for BME persons (OR: 1.38, 95% CI: 1.16-1.64) and Whites from other western countries (OR: 1.54, 95% CI: 1.05-2.27), but not admission to a penitentiary hospital or use of medication. The compulsory admission findings are largely explained by a higher prevalence of psychotic disorders in BME persons (19.8%) and Whites from other western countries (19.3%) as compared to Dutch natives (9.2%). Outpatient treatment was less often recommended for BME persons (OR: 0.81, 95% CI: 0.76-0.87) and Whites from other western countries (OR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.70-0.99) than for Dutch natives., Conclusion: Both patient-related and services-related factors play a role in the increased admission of BME groups and Whites from other western countries to psychiatric hospitals.