Literature DB >> 9768467

Legal and ethical duties of the clinician treating a patient who is liable to be impulsively violent.

J C Beck1.   

Abstract

This paper reviews published tort cases that arose after a patient impulsively hurt or killed someone. Plaintiffs alleged breach of the duty to protect (Tarasoff) or negligent release from hospital. There are sixteen cases involving a variety of facts and diagnoses. As a matter of law courts typically hold that impulsive violence is not foreseeable. One jury found a defendant negligent but that verdict was ultimately overturned. Statutes on duty to protect do not imply a duty to act on the fact patterns of impulsive violence in this sample. The author concludes that the ethical duty to do careful clinical work is essentially identical to the legal duty to use due care in these cases. The law imposes no additional burden on the clinician in these cases.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9768467     DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1099-0798(199822)16:3<375::aid-bsl312>3.0.co;2-j

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Sci Law        ISSN: 0735-3936


  3 in total

Review 1.  Revisiting impulsivity in suicide: implications for civil liability of third parties.

Authors:  April R Smith; Tracy K Witte; Nadia E Teale; Sarah L King; Ted W Bender; Thomas E Joiner
Journal:  Behav Sci Law       Date:  2008

Review 2.  The physician's unique role in preventing violence: a neglected opportunity?

Authors:  John C Umhau; Karysse Trandem; Mohsin Shah; David T George
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2012-11-23       Impact factor: 8.775

Review 3.  Legal concerns in psychosomatic medicine.

Authors:  Rebecca W Brendel; Ronald Schouten
Journal:  Psychiatr Clin North Am       Date:  2007-12
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.