The deprofessionalization of civil commitment (original) (raw)
AI-generated Abstract
The paper discusses the role of psychiatrists as expert witnesses in civil commitment proceedings, particularly questioning their effectiveness in predicting dangerousness associated with mental illness. It argues for the inclusion of layperson perspectives in such judicial processes, suggesting that psychiatrists do not provide significant advantages over lay opinions. The author contrasts various philosophical views on individual liberties and public health, particularly in relation to smoking and its effects on health, emphasizing the scientific data that supports the harmful impacts of second-hand smoke, especially on vulnerable populations.
Sign up for access to the world's latest research.
checkGet notified about relevant papers
checkSave papers to use in your research
checkJoin the discussion with peers
checkTrack your impact
Related papers
2006
This is the thirty-second report in a monograph series authorized by the Hoard of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association to give wider dissemination to the findings of the Association many commissions. committees, and task forces that are called upon from time to time to evaluate the state of the art in a problem area of current concern to the profession, to related disciplines, and to the public. Manifestly. the findings, opinions, and conclusions of the Task Force Reports do not necessarily represent the views of the officers, trustees, or all members of the Association. Each report. however, does represent the thoughtful judgment and consensus of the task force of experts who formulated it. These reports are considered a substantive contribution to the ongoing analysis and eva]uation of problems. issues. and practices in a given area of concern. Lawrence Hartman. M.D. President. APA 1991-1992
Bad Science Makes Bad Law: How the Deference Afforded to Psychiatry Undermines Civil Liberties
Seattle Journal for Social Justice
Courts and lawmakers trust psychiatric expertise when making judicial and public policy decisions concerning mental health, but is this trust well placed? This paper adopts a philosophy of science approach informed by medical research to evaluating the validity of psychiatric classification. This provides the basis for an interdisciplinary critical analysis of civil commitment law and use of psychiatric expert witnesses in light of legal evidence standards. This analysis demonstrates that involuntary civil commitment as it now stands is incompatible with broader due process and civil rights concerns and affords an unjustifiable evidentiary status to psychiatric diagnosis.
The Role of Psychiatric Expert Witness in Court
Psychiatric expertise represents professional activities that an psychiatric expert carries out with the use of scientific, technical and other achievements and provides the necessary professional knowledge to the court or other authority conducting the proceedings with the aim of establishing, evaluating or clarifying legally relevant facts. An expert in the psychiatric profession independently or in a team gives his findings and opinions. Psychiatrist as a court expert, even though he has no education in law, his task is to connect law and psychiatry.
The wrong handle": flawed fixes of medicolegal problems in psychiatry and the law
The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 2005
The practice of psychiatry, the severity of some men- tal illnesses, the rights of mental patients, and the available resources for evaluation and treatment of mentally ill persons all pose significant challenges for the involved parties, including patients, practitio- ners, institutions, legislatures, and social systems. Making the system work at all inescapably creates many problems of access to and delivery
Loading Preview
Sorry, preview is currently unavailable. You can download the paper by clicking the button above.