Search

People with mental illnesses are markedly overrepresented in U.S. jails and prisons. Although a variety of factors account for this overrepresentation, punitive actions by prosecutors and judges in response to behaviors caused by mental illness play an important role. A recent Maryland case illustrates how such actions can occur, with excessive charges filed against a woman whose behavior was clearly related to a mental health crisis and the imposition of a disproportionate sentence. Educating prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges about the nature and consequences of mental illnesses is an essential step toward mitigating the punitive approach of the current U.S. criminal legal system., Competing Interests: The author reports no financial relationships with commercial interests.

Although the Americans with Disabilities Act bars discrimination in the workplace on the basis of mental disability, the courts have not always been sympathetic to plaintiffs' claims of discriminatory treatment. Judges often side with employers who claim that necessary accommodations would create undue hardship or are otherwise unreasonable or that plaintiffs are not qualified for the job. Although statutory or regulatory changes may be needed to protect workers' rights, mental health professionals can be helpful to their patients who are requesting accommodations by carefully describing their functional limitations and how they can be accommodated.

Mental impairments as a result of intoxication with alcohol or drugs have never been accepted as bases for an insanity defense. However, most U.S. jurisdictions have agreed that when the downstream effects of substance use lead to longer-term impairment, this circumstance can serve as legitimate grounds for an insanity plea. A recent Massachusetts case illustrates the application of this doctrine of "settled insanity." Although subject to criticism as excusing volitional behavior, recognition of the interplay between endogenous dispositions and the effects of substances suggests the wisdom of allowing settled insanity pleas.

After the publication of DSM-5 , the American Psychiatric Association moved to a model of iterative DSM revision. Proposals for changes-including addition and deletion of diagnostic categories-can be made whenever data become available to support these changes. Criteria for consideration of proposals and a multistage review process have been created. This Open Forum reports on the first 3 years' experience since the opening of the submission portal in late 2017. Changes to date include adoption of a new diagnostic category, clarification of existing diagnostic criteria and text, and inclusion of new nondiagnosis codes for suicidal and nonsuicidal self-injury.

The introduction of psychiatric genetic evidence in court proceedings to terminate parental rights raises concerns that such information will result in misconceived assumptions about the child's mental health trajectory and unjust rulings on termination of parental rights. We conducted an online vignette-based survey with a nationally representative sample of adults from the general public ( n = 300 respondents) to assess their views on how evidence about a child's psychiatric genetic makeup may affect key decisions in termination proceedings. Our findings indicate that genetic evidence increased the child's labeling as having a psychiatric disorder, regardless of the presence of symptoms, treatment recommendations, evaluation of prescription medication, and beliefs in treatment efficacy. Genetic evidence alone did not affect whether participants would terminate parental rights, but participants who thought that the child did not have a psychiatric disorder were more likely to terminate in the presence of genetic test results. We conclude that psychiatric genetic evidence in termination proceedings may have unintended consequences, and that measures should be taken to ensure that it does not unfairly affect outcomes., (© 2021 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

Objective: Precision medicine raises hope for translating genetic-based knowledge about psychiatric risks into mental health benefits by motivating health-related, risk-reducing behaviors. Teenagers (ages 14-17) are an important age-group to engage in preventive efforts but, their views about psychiatric genetics are understudied., Method: An online survey with a nationally representative sample of teenagers (n = 417) was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 1 of 2 handouts, 1 emphasizing the genetic underpinnings of psychiatric conditions; the other agency-oriented and focusing on gene-environment interactions. Survey questions queried their views about behavioral changes in response to psychiatric genetic risk information and expressed willingness to undertake them. Participants' decision-making characteristics (i.e., self-efficacy, empowerment, intolerance of uncertainty, and sensation-seeking) were assessed at baseline., Results: Teenagers strongly valued the information provided and its potential usefulness for their mental health. Information about psychiatric genetics alone impacted views about the causes of mental illness. Contrary to our hypothesis, the type of handout did not impact participants' expressed willingness to make behavioral changes to reduce their risk of developing a psychiatric condition, but their sense of empowerment played a key role in their responses., Conclusion: Educating teenagers about gene-environment interactions may help facilitate the translational efforts of precision psychiatry. Research with teenagers across racial/ethnic groups, especially those with family histories, is needed to better understand the factors that impact teenagers' empowerment in psychiatric genomic settings and to identify measures, including the best enablers of empowerment (e.g., educators, parents), which would allow them to reap the benefits of precision psychiatry., (© 2021 S. Karger AG, Basel.)

Mental disorders are increasingly conceptualized as biomedical diseases, explained as manifestations of genetic and neurobiological abnormalities. Here, we discuss changes in the dominant explanatory accounts of psychopathology that have occurred over time and the driving forces behind these shifts, lay out some real-world evidence for the increasing ascendancy of biomedical explanations, and provide an overview of the types of attitudes and beliefs that may be affected by them. We examine theoretical and conceptual models that are relevant to understanding how biomedical conceptualizations might affect attitudes and beliefs about mental disorders, and we review some empirical evidence that bears on this question. Finally, we examine possible strategies for combatting potential negative effects of biomedical explanations and discuss important conclusions and directions for future research.

Objective: Violent and aggressive behaviors are common among psychiatric inpatients. Hospital security officers are sometimes used to address such behaviors. Research on the role of security in inpatient units is scant. This study examined when security is utilized and what happens when officers arrive., Methods: The authors reviewed the security logbook and the medical records for all patients discharged from an inpatient psychiatry unit over a six-month period. Authors recorded when security calls happened, what behaviors triggered security calls, what outcomes occurred, and whether any patient characteristics were associated with security calls., Results: A total of 272 unique patients were included. A total of 49 patients (18%) generated security calls (N=157 calls). Security calls were most common in the first week of hospitalization (N=45 calls), and roughly half of the patients (N=25 patients) had only one call. The most common inciting behavior was "threats to persons" (N=34 calls), and the most common intervention was intramuscular antipsychotic injection (N=49 calls). The patient variables associated with security calls were having more than one prior hospitalization (odds ratio [OR]=4.56, p=.001, 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.80-11.57), involuntary hospitalization (OR=5.09, p<.001, CI=2.28-11.33), and going to court for any reason (OR=5.80, p=.004, CI=1.75-19.15)., Conclusions: Security officers were often called for threats of violence and occasionally called for actual violence. Patient variables associated with security calls are common among inpatients, and thus clinicians should stay attuned to patients' moment-to-moment care needs.

Purpose of Review: Genetic testing for mental illness is likely to become increasingly prevalent as the science behind it is refined. This article identifies anticipated ethical challenges for patients, psychiatrists, and genetic counselors and makes recommendations for addressing them., Recent Findings: Many of the ethical challenges of psychiatric genetic testing are likely to stem from failures to comprehend the nature and implications of test results. Recent studies have identified gaps in the knowledge base of psychiatrists and genetic counselors, which limit their abilities to provide patients with appropriate education. A small number of studies have demonstrated the value of counseling in empowering patients to deal with relevant genetic information. Psychiatrists and other health professionals must be able to assist patients and families in making informed decisions about genetic testing and interpreting test results. Filling their knowledge gaps on these issues will be a critical step towards meeting these responsibilities.

The APA's Goldwater Rule, precluding psychiatrists from rendering opinions to the media about public figures whom they have not examined, has often engendered controversy. Here, I consider the justifications for the rule, how well they stand up to criticism, and the extent, if any, to which modifications might be called for. Although embarrassment to the profession is often cited as the basis for the Rule, it reflects more substantive concerns, including the risk of harm to living persons and discouraging persons in need of treatment from seeking psychiatric attention. The most potent criticisms of the Rule are that it discourages public education about mental illness and its effects and precludes legitimate scholarly endeavors by psychiatrists studying foreign leaders, historical figures, and others. However, there are many ways of providing education about mental illness without violating the Rule, and read properly, it should not prevent legitimate historical investigation, though some clarification of the Rule on this point might be helpful. Even psychiatrists who seek to aid policymakers in dealing with international or domestic threats should not find that the Rule interferes with their efforts. On balance, the Goldwater Rule continues to be an important underpinning of ethical behavior by psychiatrists., (© 2017 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

Objective: This research examined the frequency of and characteristics associated with three forms of violence among persons with mental illness-violence directed at others, self-directed violence, and violence directed at them by others., Methods: Previously unreported data from a follow-up sample of 951 patients from the MacArthur Violence Risk Assessment Study were analyzed to characterize involvement in violence directed at others, self-directed violence, and violence directed at them by others., Results: Most patients (58%) experienced at least one form of violence, 28% experienced at least two forms, and 7% experienced all three forms. Several diagnostic, social, and historical variables distinguished the groups., Conclusions: Given the substantial overlap among the three forms of violence, clinicians should routinely screen patients who report one form for the occurrence of the other two. Co-occurrence of several forms of violence may require a package of interventions with components geared to each.

Laws permitting physician-assisted death in the United States currently are limited to terminal conditions. Canada is considering whether to extend the practice to encompass intractable suffering caused by mental disorders, and the question inevitably will arise in the United States. Among the problems seen in countries that have legalized assisted death for mental disorders are difficulties in assessing the disorder's intractability and the patient's decisional competence, and the disproportionate involvement of patients with social isolation and personality disorders. Legitimate concern exists that assisted death could serve as a substitute for creating adequate systems of mental health treatment and social support.

A substantial proportion of people shot by police have mental disorders, and many of these killings appear to have been avoidable. One tool to encourage better police training and more cautious behavior is the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, police groups oppose application of the ADA to arrests, fearing limits on their discretion, and the U.S. Supreme Court appears to favor that view. When the Court declined a recent opportunity to decide the question, it left open a window of opportunity during which the ADA can be leveraged to improve how police officers deal with persons with mental illness.

"Boarding" involuntary psychiatric patients in medical emergency rooms is common in many parts of the United States. The practice, driven by a shortage of alternative resources, including limited inpatient capacity, can result in patients' being held for days without treatment or a hospital room, often in busy corridors or treatment rooms. A recent challenge to this practice led the Washington Supreme Court to declare it illegal and resulted in the appropriation of substantial funding to create new psychiatric beds. Centralized psychiatric crisis services, with appropriate payment models, may offer another approach to reducing the need for holding patients awaiting inpatient admission.

Before the Supreme Court's 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the American Psychiatric Association's position on gun policy reflected the strong gun control perspective championed by the nation's public health establishment. After Heller declared that an individual's right to bear arms is constitutionally protected, the APA refocused its attention on the specific aspects of firearm policy that implicate the interests and rights of persons with mental illness. Psychiatrists are mindful of the need to curtail firearm access by persons with mental disorders that elevate the risk of suicide or violence to others, but they are also opposed to stigmatization, discrimination, and unfair treatment of individuals based on mental illness. Although civil commitment is an acceptable basis for prohibiting access to firearms, other adjudications of conduct indicative of elevated risk should also be included. Every state should provide a fair and reasonable process for restoring firearm rights after a suitable waiting period based on individualized assessment of whether the person remains at an elevated risk. However, restricting firearm rights of persons solely on the basis of a diagnosis of a mental disorder or voluntary treatment, whether in-patient or outpatient, discourages treatment and would be counterproductive., (Copyright © 2015 American Psychiatric Association. Published with permission (original adopted by the American Psychiatric Association 2014).)

The American Psychiatric Association, ("APA"), with more than 36,000 members at present, is the Nation's leading organization of physicians who specialize in psychiatry. APA provides for education and advocacy and develops policy through Position Statements. It promotes enhanced knowledge of particular topics relevant to psychiatric practice and patient care through Resource Documents. Since 1993, the APA has developed various positions and resource materials related to firearms and mental illness, incorporating evolving themes as new issues emerge. This paper reflects the APA's 2014 Position Statement on Firearm Access, Acts of Violence and the Relationship to Mental Illness and Mental Health Services., (Copyright © 2015 American Psychiatric Association. Published with permission (original adopted by the American Psychiatric Association 2014).)

The National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 encouraged states to create processes by which individuals who have lost their rights to firearm possession for mental-illness-related reasons could receive relief from restrictions. Over 20 states have created relief processes for this sub-group, but there still exists considerable state-by-state heterogeneity. The spectrum ranges from states that require a physician's opinion regarding appropriateness for restoration to those that rely solely on judicial proceedings without input from psychiatrists or other mental health professionals. This article reviews the restoration process in New York State, a model in which psychiatrists participate in the process of assessing whether an individual's firearm rights can be restored. It discusses the legislative background of these regulations, the specific policies and procedures governing the restoration process, and clinical considerations for the forensic evaluation., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

The American Psychiatric Association, ("APA"), with more than 36,000 members at present, is the Nation's leading organization of physicians who specialize in psychiatry. APA provides for education and advocacy and develops policy through Position Statements. It promotes enhanced knowledge of particular topics relevant to psychiatric practice and patient care through Resource Documents. Since 1993, the APA has developed various positions and resource materials related to firearms and mental illness, incorporating evolving themes as new issues emerge. This paper reflects the APA's 2014 Resource Document on "Access to Firearms by People with Mental Disorders." This article is derived from work done on behalf of American Psychiatric Association and remains the property of APA. It has been altered only in response to the requirements of peer review., (Copyright © 2015 American Psychiatric Association. Published with permission (original adopted by the American Psychiatric Association 2014).)

Analyses from the National Comorbidity Study Replication provide the first nationally representative estimates of the co-occurrence of impulsive angry behavior and possessing or carrying a gun among adults with and without certain mental disorders and demographic characteristics. The study found that a large number of individuals in the United States self-report patterns of impulsive angry behavior and also possess firearms at home (8.9%) or carry guns outside the home (1.5%). These data document associations of numerous common mental disorders and combinations of angry behavior with gun access. Because only a small proportion of persons with this risky combination have ever been involuntarily hospitalized for a mental health problem, most will not be subject to existing mental health-related legal restrictions on firearms resulting from a history of involuntary commitment. Excluding a large proportion of the general population from gun possession is also not likely to be feasible. Behavioral risk-based approaches to firearms restriction, such as expanding the definition of gun-prohibited persons to include those with violent misdemeanor convictions and multiple DUI convictions, could be a more effective public health policy to prevent gun violence in the population., Competing Interests: None of the other authors has any potential conflicts to report., (Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

In their efforts to protect the public from impaired professionals, licensure boards often have created special rules for applicants with mental disorders. The authorities in charge of admission to the Louisiana bar required extensive disclosure of mental health status, even if an applicant's professional functioning was not impaired. After the U.S. Department of Justice found that Louisiana's practices violated applicants' rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act, the state agreed to focus on applicants' functional impairment rather than on mental disorders. This settlement may provide a model for licensure boards in other states and for other professions, including the health professions.

Recent mass shootings have prompted a national dialogue around mental illness and gun policy. To advance an evidence-informed policy agenda on this controversial issue, we formed a consortium of national gun violence prevention and mental health experts. The consortium agreed on a guiding principle for future policy recommendations: restricting firearm access on the basis of certain dangerous behaviors is supported by the evidence; restricting access on the basis of mental illness diagnoses is not. We describe the group's process and recommendations.

We examined how 372 psychiatrists view genetic aspects of mental disorders and behaviors and use genetic tests (GTs). Most thought that the genetic contribution was moderate/high for bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, depression, Alzheimer's, intelligence, creativity, anxiety, and suicidality. In the past 6 months, 14.1% ordered GTs, 18.3% discussed prenatal testing with patients, 36.0% initiated discussions about other GTs, 41.6% had patients ask about GTs, and 5.3% excluded GT results from patient records. Many thought that GTs; were available for schizophrenia (24.3%) and major depression (19.6%). Women were more likely to report that patients asked about GTs; and were less certain about the degree of genetic contribution to several disorders. Psychiatrists perceive strong genetic bases for numerous disorders and traits, and many have discussed and ordered tests for GTs, but have relatively limited knowledge about available tests. These data suggest possible sex differences in psychiatrists' beliefs about genetic contributions to disorders and have implications for future research, education, policy, and care.

Recent advances in behavioral genetics suggest a modest relationship among certain gene variants, early childhood experiences, and criminal behavior. Although scientific research examining this link is still at an early stage, genetic data are already being introduced in criminal trials. However, the extent to which such evidence is likely to affect jurors' decisions has not been explored. In the present study, a representative sample of the U.S. population (n = 250) received a vignette describing an apparently impulsive homicide, accompanied by one of four explanations of the defendant's impulsivity: childhood abuse, genetic predisposition, childhood abuse and genetic predisposition, or simple impulsive behavior. The participants were asked to identify the crime that the defendant had committed and to select an appropriate sentence range. Evidence of genetic predisposition did not affect the crime of which the defendant was convicted or the sentence. However, participants who received the abuse or genetic + abuse explanation imposed longer prison sentences. Paradoxically, the genetic and genetic + abuse conditions engendered the greatest fear of the defendant. These findings should allay concerns that genetic evidence in criminal adjudications will be overly persuasive to jurors, but should raise questions about the impact of genetic attributions on perceptions of dangerousness.

Objective: This study explored the range of interventions and the use of more intrusive techniques by staff of assertive community treatment (ACT) teams to promote engagement, manage problem behaviors, and reinforce positive behaviors among patients. Individual and organizational characteristics that may be associated with these practices were identified., Methods: Between January and March 2006, clinicians (N=239) from 34 ACT teams participated in a one-time survey about their intervention strategies with patients, perceptions about the ACT team environment, and beliefs about persons with severe mental illness., Results: Significant variation existed in the types of interventions employed across teams. The less intrusive strategies, including positive inducements and verbal guidance, were the most common. Other strategies that placed limits on patients but that were still considered less intrusive-such as medication monitoring and money management-were also common. Clinicians who reported working in more demoralized climates and having negative perceptions of mental illness were more likely to endorse leveraged or intrusive interventions., Conclusions: The findings of this study suggest significant variation across teams in the use of intervention strategies. Both perceptions of a demoralized organizational climate and stigmatizing beliefs about mental illness were correlated with the use of more intrusive intervention strategies. Future research on the role and appropriateness of more intrusive interventions in mental health treatment and the impact of such interventions on patient outcomes is warranted.

OBJECTIVE This study compared rates of arrest and incarceration, psychiatric hospitalization, homelessness, and discharge from assertive community treatment (ACT) programs for forensic and nonforensic clients in New York State and explored associated risk factors. METHODS Data were extracted from the New York State Office of Mental Health's Web-based outcome reporting system. ACT clients admitted between July 1, 2003, and June 30, 2007 (N=4,756), were divided into three groups by their forensic status at enrollment: recent (involvement in the past six months), remote (forensic involvement was more than six months prior), and no history. Client characteristics as of ACT enrollment and outcomes at one, two, and three years were compared over time. RESULTS Clients with forensic histories had a significantly higher ongoing risk of arrest or incarceration, and those with recent criminal justice involvement had a higher risk of homelessness and early discharge from ACT. Psychiatric hospitalization rates did not differ significantly across groups. Rates of all adverse outcomes were highest in the first year for all ACT clients, especially for those with a recent forensic history, and rates of psychiatric hospitalization, homelessness, and discharge declined over time for all clients. For all ACT clients, homelessness and problematic substance abuse at enrollment were significant risk factors for arrest or incarceration and for homelessness on three-year follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Clients with recent forensic histories were vulnerable to an array of adverse outcomes, particularly during their first year of ACT. This finding highlights the need for additional strategies to improve forensic and other outcomes for this high-risk population.

Advances in neuropsychiatric genetics hold great hopes for improved prevention, diagnosis and treatment. However, the power of genetic testing to identify individuals at increased risk for disorders and to convey information about relatives creates a set of complex ethical issues. Public attitudes are inevitably affected by the shadow of eugenics, with its history of distorting scientific findings to serve socio-political ends. Nonetheless, the growing availability of genetic tests means that more patients will seek genetic information and physicians must manage the process of informed consent to allow meaningful decisions. Patients should be helped to understand the often-limited predictive power of current knowledge, potential psychological impact, risks of stigma and discrimination and possible implications for family members. Decisions for predictive testing of children raise additional concerns, including distortions of family dynamics and negative effects on children's self-image; testing is best deferred until adulthood unless preventive interventions exist. Pharmacogenomic testing, part of personalized medicine, may bring collateral susceptibility information for which patients should be prepared. The implications of genetic findings for families raise the question of whether physicians have duties to inform family members of implications for their health. Finally, participation in research in neuropsychiatric genetics evokes a broad range of ethical concerns, including the contentious issue of the extent to which results should be returned to individual subjects. As genetic science becomes more widely applied, the public will become more sophisticated and will be likely to demand a greater role in determining social policy on these issues.

Although courts routinely consider whether a criminal defendant's mental illness makes punishment unfair, the rules are very different for civil liability. When people with mental illness harm others, courts refuse to consider their mental states in determining civil liability. The justifications offered for this rule range from the difficulty of assessing the impact of mental illness on behavior to the desire to place the burden of loss on the person who caused the injury. Undeniably, though, mental disabilities are treated differently from physical impairments, and the law's resistance to change seems largely based on misunderstanding and prejudice against mental illness.

Should a murderer be allowed to inherit the victim's estate? The question dates from biblical times, but most jurisdictions today have statutes in place that bar inheritance by convicted murderers. However, a special problem arises when the killer has a severe mental illness and has been found not guilty by reason of insanity. Should such people, who have not been convicted of a crime, be permitted to collect their inheritance? Jurisdictions vary in their responses, with the rules reflecting a mix of practical and moral considerations influenced by different perspectives about what determines the behavior of persons with mental illness.

Objectives: To explore the proportion of defendants hospitalized by court observation order (COO) who were diagnosed as having a psychiatric disorder during: 1) the COO period, or 2) a 10-year follow-up period., Methods: Data on all adult defendants, who underwent psychiatric hospitalization by COO between 1991 and 1995, were extracted from the National Psychiatric Case Registry of the Israel Ministry of Health, and rehospitalizations over the next ten years were identified. ANO VA and Wilcoxon signed-rank test were used for comparing the diagnosed and undiagnosed defendant cohorts., Results: Only 17% of defendants hospitalized by COO received a psychiatric diagnosis (N=316), while the remaining referred defendants (N=1,532) were not diagnosed as suffering from any psychiatric disorder. Although 56% of the initially undiagnosed group (N=863) were rehospitalized and received a psychiatric diagnosis during the next ten years, 36% of the original cohort never received a diagnosis subsequent to hospitalization (N=556). Significant median differences in inpatient days associated with a follow-up diagnosis of psychotic disorder were found between the diagnosed and undiagnosed defendant cohorts (z=4.89, p less than .001)., Conclusions: The high rate of diagnosis of defendants who were undiagnosed at the index hospitalization suggests that the COO is ineffective and tends to discharge without diagnosis defendants who are later found to be psychotic. Therefore, an independent examination of the accuracy of the forensic psychiatric evaluation (FPE) process is called for, to determine whether actual disorders are being missed. There should be a professional and public debate on the unnecessary use of court-ordered hospitalizations and ways of their prevention.

Persons with mental illness may face particular challenges when asked to testify at criminal trials. Mental illness, along with the pressures of testifying, may prevent them from testifying or may affect their testimony. This column discusses laws that, in certain circumstances, permit litigants to use out-of-court statements made by people with mental disorders as a substitute for in-court testimony; two U.S. Supreme Court cases that placed substantial limits on the use of out-of-court statements under these laws; and in light of these limits, alternatives that would permit use of out-of-court statements.

This column describes federal and state laws to restrict access to firearms among people with mental illness. The contribution to public safety of these laws is likely to be small because only 3%-5% of violent acts are attributable to serious mental illness, and most do not involve guns. The categories of persons with mental illnesses targeted by the laws may not be at higher risk of violence than other subgroups in this population. The laws may deter people from seeking treatment for fear of losing the right to possess firearms and may reinforce stereotypes of persons with mental illnesses as dangerous.

Genetics is one of the most active areas of research on mental disorders. As genetic tests related to psychiatric disorders and their treatments proliferate in research and clinical settings, the possibility becomes more troubling that such information will be used for purposes other than those for which it was collected. Because of this, the federal Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2008 is of substantial importance to persons with mental disorders, persons at risk for the conditions, and family members of both groups. This column discusses the process of passing the legislation, along with the implications of the act.

Objective: Despite legal protections, persons with mental illness continue to experience discrimination that limits their access to voting in elections. In response, a number of states have adopted individualized functional determinations of mental capacity to vote. A 2001 federal court decision offered clear criteria for determining voting capacity that are based on understanding the nature and effect of voting ("the Doe standard"). This study explored the performance on these criteria by a sample of individuals with serious mental illness., Methods: The Doe standard has been operationalized with the Competency Assessment Tool for Voting (CAT-V) along with measures of reasoning and appreciation. Performance was assessed with the CAT-V in a sample of 52 community-dwelling persons with serious mental illness and then compared on measures of cognition, verbal IQ, and symptom severity., Results: The interview questions were scored with good interrater reliability and took an average of less than five minutes to administer. Performance was high, with 92% scoring a 5 or 6 out of 6 possible points on the Doe-standard criteria. Performance did not correlate with cognition, verbal IQ, or symptom severity., Conclusions: The CAT-V is an easy and efficient method of determining voting capacity according to the Doe standard. Assuming that the high scores in this sample are confirmed in other groups, in general it may be appropriate to assume that even persons with serious mental illness are capable of voting. When a person's capacity to vote is called into question, screening instruments such as the CAT-V may be useful to guide an assessment.

Does the Constitution require a trial court to allow an obviously impaired man to represent himself? This column discusses the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Indiana v. Edwards, which allows states to limit a defendant's right to self-representation when the individual lacks the mental capacity to conduct a trial defense unless represented. Previous cases bearing on the decision are discussed, including Dusky v. U.S. in 1960, which set the standard for competence to stand trial; Faretta v. California in 1975, which established the right of criminal defendants to represent themselves; and Godinez v. Moran in 1993, which upheld the Dusky standard for trial-related competence.

In 2001, a seminal Institute of Medicine report, Crossing the Quality Chasm: A New Health System for the 21st Century, put forth a comprehensive strategy for improving the quality of U.S. health care. This strategy attained considerable traction within the overall U.S. health care system and subsequent attention in the mental health community as well. A new Institute of Medicine report, Improving the Quality of Health Care for Mental and Substance Use Conditions, examines the quality chasm strategy in light of the distinctive features of mental and substance use health care, including concerns about patient decision-making abilities and coercion into care, a less developed quality measurement and improvement infrastructure, lagging use of information technology and participation in the development of the National Health Information Infrastructure, greater separations in care delivery accompanied by more restrictions on sharing clinical information, a larger number of provider types licensed to diagnose and treat, more solo practice, and a differently structured marketplace. This article summarizes the Institute of Medicine's analysis of these issues and recommendations for improving mental and substance use health care and discusses the implications for psychiatric practice and related advocacy efforts of psychiatrists, psychiatric organizations, and other leaders in mental and substance use health care.

Objectives: Poor readability of informed consent forms has been a persistent problem in clinical research. The low educational attainments of many patients with mental illness might suggest a still greater problem in mental health settings. To explore this potential disparity, this study sought to determine whether the informed consent forms used in research approved by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health were written at a grade level that was higher than that achieved by potential study participants., Methods: The readability (grade level necessary to read text) of informed consent forms for 154 studies was calculated with several standard formulas. Readability scores were stratified on the basis of the risk level of the study from which the consent form was taken. These data were then compared with data on the maximum attained grade level of potential participants aged 19 years or older., Results: The overall mean readability scores for the informed consent forms, as determined by the four methods, ranged from grade levels 12 to 14.5. Furthermore, the mean readability scores increased with higher risk levels of the studies. Approximately 35% of potential participants had not graduated from high school, 37% had graduated from high school or obtained a GED, and 28% had some education beyond the 12th grade., Conclusions: These data demonstrate poor readability of informed consent forms used in research approved by the Massachusetts Department of Mental Health and highlight a mismatch between consent form readability and the educational level of potential study participants. The findings suggest that methods of reducing the complexity of forms, as part of improving the overall consent process, are much needed.

It is crucial to minimize bias when offering forensic opinions; however, to our knowledge there are few, if any, existing data examining whether psychiatrists are susceptible to one source of such bias, hindsight bias. In the current study, 235 general and forensic psychiatrists reviewed hypothetical cases in which patients with suicidal or homicidal ideation presented for psychiatric care. We informed half of the participants that a suicide or homicide had occurred shortly after the patients were released from care (hindsight group) but withheld outcome information from the other participants (control group). Participants estimated the likelihood that suicide or violence would occur at the time of the patient's release and whether the standard of care had been met in each case. Responses were compared between groups for suggestions of hindsight bias. Results indicate that hindsight bias plays a role in assessments of risk, but not of negligence, and that psychiatrists who are American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law (AAPL) members may be less prone to respond with hindsight bias than are others.

Persons who handle money for patients with mental disabilities often use access to funds as leverage to promote adherence to treatment. Drawing on data from a five-site study involving interviews of 1011 patients at community mental health centers, this paper explores who provides money assistance, the predictors of leverage use, and its impact on patients. A substantial minority of patients reported having experienced leverage. Substance abuse and frequent hospitalization were the strongest clinical predictors, suggesting that functional impairment is a key determinant. Patients experiencing money leverage were also likely to experience other forms of leverage, and although they were more likely to feel coerced, they were also more likely to believe that money leverage was effective. Family members seemed to provoke fewer negative feelings as money managers. The frequency with which money leverage is used suggests attention is needed to both the fairness of leverage and the means of minimizing negative effects.

The evolution of U.S. civil commitment law needs to be understood within the context of changes in psychiatry and medicine, as well as larger social policy and economic changes. American civil commitment law has reflected the swinging pendulum of social attitudes towards civil commitment, oscillating between more and less restriction for both procedural and substantive standards. These standards have evolved from a "need for treatment" approach to a "dangerousness" rationale, and now may be moving to a position in which these justifications are combined, particularly in the context of involuntary outpatient commitment. Civil commitment in the United States has been shaped by multiple factors, including sensitivity to civil rights, public perception of psychiatry, availability of resources, and larger economic pressures. We suggest that current American commitment practice is influenced more by economic factors and social perceptions of mental illness than by changing legal standards.