Search

The article argues on the constitutionality of laws prohibiting mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with lesbian, bisexual, gay, transgender and queer youth under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment. Topics include background on Third, Ninth and Eleventh Circuits' decisions in Otto v. City of Boca Raton related to a law limiting conversion therapy or sexual orientation change, and a conclusion reiterating that laws banning conversion therapy are constitutional.

One of the main responsibilities of the Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) is coordinating Mental Health Act (MHA) Assessments. This can include making applications for compulsory admission, and applying the guiding principles of the MHA including, the 'Least restrictive option and maximising independence' when considering alternatives to compulsory admission. A MHA assessment is usually requested during mental health crisis when alternatives to admission are exhausted. Literature refers to the controlling and coercive elements of the AMHP role, lack of community resources, and the increasing number of compulsory admissions direct from the community. There is less research on the wider role of the AMHP and its potential to avert crisis. Included in the main AMHP functions is the authority under section 115 MHA to enter and inspect, with 'reasonable cause', premises in relation to 'mentally disordered patients'. This authority may enable AMHPs to intervene without coordinating a MHA assessment whilst meeting the legal obligation to 'consider the patient's case' under Section 13 (1) MHA. The role of the AMHP as a 'legal protector' of human rights and their expertise in averting crisis is discussed. This article concludes with recommendations for AMHP practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The enactment of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 2007 introduced the role of the multidisciplinary Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) in England and Wales by amending The MHA 1983. The role can now be performed by a range of professionals including a psychologist, an occupational-therapist, a social worker or a mental-health/learning difficulties nurse. This amendment amongst other legal provisions replaced the earlier Approved Social Worker role. This is an exploratory qualitative research that aimed to identify if the decision-making relating to management and assessment of risk varied according to the professional background of the AMHP. The decision-making of 10 social work and 10 nursing AMHPs were examined through the use of an experimental vignette containing audio-visual and written materials in order for participants to reach a decision about whether or not to detain. Proposed detention rates between social work and nurse AMHPs were identical although variation was found across the whole sample in terms of the risks that were identified in the vignette. The paper concludes by arguing that these results suggest that differences in the way AMHPs reach decisions may well relate to a variety of individual differences rather than reflecting initial professional identity and training as so often argued in the literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article argues that to understand the divide among circuit courts over the right to an independent mental health professional, an analysis of "Ake v. Oklahoma" is required. It discusses how the U.S. Supreme Court in the case 'Ake' expanded "Griffin v. Illinois" to hold that a defendant must have access to a competent mental health professional who will evaluate and examine the defendant and assist in the preparation of the defense if the defendant's sanity.

The article discusses legal liability for mental health professionals who fail to warn individuals who may be at risk of harm from clients, and it mentions a mental health professional's duty of confidentiality to a patient under Idaho law. Patient privacy under the American Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA) is examined, along with Washington Supreme Court case Volk v. DeMeerleer which deals with a psychiatrist's liability for violence committed by a patient.

An introduction is presented in which the editor discusses various reports within the issue on topics including ethical and legal challenges faced by litigators and mental health personnel complicated legal system, and issues of parents suffering from mental illness.

The article discusses how health care providers could comply with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and secure the psychological testing data of patients. Topics covered include the issues regarding patients' requests for disclosure of their private information as well as the use of assessment tools to analyze raw data. Also mentioned is the privacy rule covering the release of psychotherapy notes.

The article offers information on the legal constitutionality of the California Senate Bill (SB) 1172, which was signed by the Californian governor Jerry Brown in September 2012. It informs that SB 1172 prohibits mental health providers and therapists from engaging in sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) with minors under eighteen years of age. It analyzes the judicial decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of United States v. Windsor related to the protection of gay rights.

The seminal ruling of Tarasoff v. Board of Regents of the Universities of California enacted a duty that required mental health providers to warn potential victims of any real threat to life made by a patient. Many have theorized that this required breach of confidentiality may have adverse effects on effective psychological treatment--but the issue remains unaddressed empirically. Because of the presence of duty-to-warn laws, patients might forgo mental health treatment that would prevent violence. Using a fixed-effects model and exploiting the variation in the timing and style of duty-to-warn laws across states, I find that mandatory duty-to-warn laws cause an increase in the homicide rate of .4, or 5 percent. These results are robust to model specifications and falsification tests and help to clarify the true effect of state duty-to-warn laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses contemporary bioethics, state laws in America, and an analysis of whether a mental health professional has a duty to protect threatened victims in the wake of the shooting deaths of 20 students at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 and the 1973 case Tarasoff v. Regents of Univ. of Cal. which deals with the murder of Tatiana "Tanya" Tarasoff by mental counseling patient Prosenjit Poddar. Wrongful death lawsuits and codes of ethics are examined.

The article presents an analysis of California's ban on sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE) in relation to the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution as of June 2014, focusing on abortion regulations and California Senate Bill 1172 which prohibits mental health professionals from engaging in conversion therapy with individuals under the age of 18. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, preliminary injunctions, and burdens on the free exercise of religion are examined.

The article discusses prosecutions and the reportedly unfulfilled promise of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and rape-trauma syndrome (RTS) evidence in the U.S. as of July 2014, focusing on the claim that many courts limit the admissibility of syndrome evidence. A comparison is provided of the offensive and defensive uses of syndrome-related evidence. It states that syndrome evidence generally appears as expert testimony in the form of a qualified mental-health professional's opinion.

The article focuses on conversion therapy, treatments that aim to convert a homosexual person into a heterosexual person, and discusses Chapter 835 of California Statute that bans mental health professionals from performing conversion therapy. It analyzes whether Chapter 835 violates that the U.S. Constitution First Amendment right to free speech of mental health professionals who often employs speech-based treatments.

Copyright of Studia Universitatis Petru Maior, Series Oeconomica is the property of Petru Maior Unversity, Faculty of Economics Law & Administrative Services and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Persons with mental illness or substance abuse have been perceived by the public to pose an increased risk of violence to themselves and others. As a result, federal and state laws have restricted the right of certain categories of persons with mental illness or substance abuse to possess, register, license, retain, or carry a firearm. Clinicians should be familiar with the specific firearm statutes of their own states, which describe the disqualifying mental health/substance abuse history and the role and responsibility of the psychiatrist in the process. State statutes vary widely in terms of the definitions of, and reporting requirements relating to, prohibited persons with mental illness or substance abuse. States also vary in the duration of the prohibition and in the timing of the appeals process. Some of the statutes have specific provisions for the removal of a firearm when a prohibited person is identified. States may maintain a mental health database that is used to determine firearm eligibility and may forward information to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 will likely increase the number of persons identified as belonging to the prohibited class. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The 2008 revised Mental Health Act Code of Practice describes the legal framework governing the admission to hospital and treatment of children and young people for mental disorders as complex. Clinicians are required to be conversant with common law principles as well as the Mental Health Act (MHA), Children Act, Mental Capacity Act (MCA), Family Law Reform Act, Human Rights Act, and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Professionals working with the MHA and the MCA have a legal duty to have regard to the respective Codes of Practice (MHA Code and MCA Code). In addition there is a need to keep up-to-date with developments in case law. The recent guidance from the National Institute for Mental Health in England, ‘The Legal Aspects of the Care and Treatment of Children and Young People with Mental Disorder’ draws all of the legal regimes together and suggests pointers on the most appropriate course of action when the regimes overlap. Discussion This paper will aim to highlight legal dilemmas relating to the care and treatment of under 18-year-olds for mental disorder and to discuss the impact of these on clinical practice. The new legal framework will be discussed with reference to hypothetical cases. Key issues include age and maturity, capacity, deprivation of liberty and the zone of parental control (ZPC). Conclusions It is essential that clinicians are aware of their responsibilities within the new legal framework in order to avoid becoming a target for litigation. This paper is aimed at meeting the recommendation for clinicians to be aware of their responsibilities and engage in appropriate training. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper outlines the current state of play in the attempts by the British government to regulate psychotherapy and to define different modalities of psychotherapeutic practice, including psychoanalysis. The response of the United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy (UKCP) to government attempts to regulate practice through the Health Professions Council is described, and the internal debates among psychoanalysts and psychoanalytic psychotherapists in the UKCP are located in the context of relationships with other professional organizations.Psychoanalysis, Culture & Society (2007) 12, 76–82. doi:10.1057/palgrave.pcs.2100111 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The development of generic statutory roles in mental health care has been the subject of discussion by New Zealand nurses for the past decade. One such role is that of second health professional in judicial reviews of civil commitment. Issues identified by New Zealand nurses have also been raised in England, where it seems that nurses are likely to assume the role of Approved Mental Health Worker under English mental health law. A survey of mental health nurses found that few had received any preparation for the role of second health professional and 45% did not feel adequately prepared for the role. Some of these issues are reflected in a New Zealand inquiry which resulted in the Ministry of Health developing a written report form for second health professionals. However, the form has the potential to reduce the mental health nursing role to a narrow legal role. Statutory roles such as that of second health professional challenge mental health nurses to critically reflect on the conceptual and ethical basis of their practice. While traditional concepts such as therapeutic relationships and advocacy need to be reviewed in light of these changes, nurses need to be vigilant in articulating the moral and clinical basis of their roles. The development of guidelines for he second health professional role is suggested as a way of supporting clinical practice in this area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Discusses the impact of involuntary mental health services law and the law that emphasizes patients' rights on mental health professionals (MHPs). Competence of mental health professionals; Provisions of the involuntary civil commitment law reform; Patients' rights groups' demand for law reform emphasizing community security; Responsibility of MHPs to provide the best care for the mentally ill.

The Tarasoff decisions of the California Supreme Court in 1974 and 1976 held that psychotherapists could be held liable for failing to protect the victims of their potentially violent patients. Our survey of psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers in eight metropolitan areas showed that Californians were more likely to have heard of the case, to believe it required warning the likely victim, and actually to issue warnings in such cases than were psychotherapists from other jurisdictions. Therapists were more willing to take steps to protect victims in 1980 than in 1975, but willingness to warn increased more among Californians than among those in other states. We conclude that although Tarasoff has influenced therapists' attitudes and behavior more in California than elsewhere, the case has also affected psychotherapeutic practice nationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Reports on the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit regarding the qualified immunity of public employees of the Vermont Department of Mental Health. Claim of the plaintiff for compensatory damages; Arguments of the defendants; Establishment of the plaintiff's constitutional and statutory rights.

An introduction is presented in which the author discusses the Idaho State Bar Health Law section's sponsorship of this issue of the journal, and it mentions articles dealing with topics such as corporate compliance programs and a mental health professional's liability for a client's violent acts.

The article discusses mental health care reform in China. Topics include the impact of a 2009 mental health law on Chinese psychiatry, the aim of the law's division of China's mental health professionals into psychiatrists, psychological counselors, and psychotherapy practitioners, and aspects of the law that benefit mental health patients, such as the prohibition of involuntary hospitalization.

There are fears that community treatment orders are creating extra work and infringing patients' rights one year on from legislative changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the 1974 California Supreme Court decision suggesting the duty of mental health professionals to protect third persons from injury inflicted by their patients or clients. The legal obligations of U.S. mental health professionals before 1974 are described and the impact of the decision to the professionals are elaborated.

Part II. Discusses the liability exposure situations for mental health care professionals in the United States. Failure to prevent suicide; Warning of intent to harm; False imprisonment or wrongful commitment.