Search

Malpractice claims frequently focus on the clinician's prescription of medications. Claims may arise in many environments: inpatient units, outpatient offices, prisons, journal articles, pharmaceutical talks, and clinical trials of new medications. The basis of the claim may be product liability, informed consent, deliberate indifference, violation of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, or academic malpractice. All malpractice claims include a duty, a breach of duty, causation, and damages. The duty and breach of duty may be obvious, but causation can vary considerably in malpractice claims. Perhaps the damages are most apparent when the patient has suffered side effects. This article explores clinician liability for the use of antidepressants from the clinical trial to the removal from the market., (Copyright © by the American Psychiatric Association.)

E-mail communication is pervasive. Since many forensic psychiatrists have their e-mail addresses available online (either on personal websites, university websites, or articles they have authored), they are likely to receive unsolicited e-mails. Although there is an emerging body of literature about exchanging e-mail with patients, there is little guidance about how to respond to e-mails from nonpatients. Therefore, we used a Delphi technique to develop a consensus about salient points for the forensic psychiatrist to consider regarding responding to e-mails from nonpatients and the risks entailed. Four scenarios are described, including e-mails from nonpatients and unknown others requesting advice or help. The potential ethics-related, legal, moral, and practical concerns for forensic psychiatrists are discussed. Finally, potential pitfalls for forensic psychiatrists are described., (© 2016 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.)

The insanity defense is a legal construct that excuses certain mentally ill defendants from legal responsibility for criminal behavior. This practice guideline has delineated the forensic psychiatric evaluation of defendants raising the insanity defense. The document describes acceptable forensic psychiatric practices. Where possible, standards of practice and ethical guidelines have been specified. And where appropriate, the practice guideline has emphasized the importance of analyzing the individual case, the jurisdictional case law and the state (or federal) statute. This practice guideline is limited by the evolving case law, statutory language and legal literature. The authors have emphasized the statutory language of current legal standards, as well as the state or federal courts' interpretation of those standards because the same statutory language has been interpreted differently in different jurisdictions. Similarly, this practice guideline has reviewed the state and federal trends that determine which diagnoses meet the criteria for mental disease or defect. These trends yield to jurisdictional court interpretations. Finally, the authors hope this practice guideline has begun the dialogue about formulating a forensic psychiatric opinion by surveying the various approaches used to analyze case data. The forensic psychiatrist's opinion in each case requires an understanding of the current jurisdictional legal standard and its application, as well as a thorough analysis of the individual case. The psychiatrist's analysis and opinion should be clearly stated in the forensic psychiatric report. It should be noted that the role of a psychiatric expert witness in the criminal justice system is predicated on the law's interest in individualizing the criteria of mitigation and exculpation. Forensic psychiatric analyses and formulations of opinions are, therefore, subject to change as the legal guidance changes.