Legal Involvement Flashcards
The Tarasoff Rule
a ruling that psychologists have a duty to protect potential victims who are in imminent danger
duty to warn
if direct, detailed threats or plans of violence are shared, the therapist has a duty to warn the intended victim and/or the proper authorities
least restrictive environment rule
patients should be offered treatment in the simplest form possible
circumstances under which information can be shared without a patient’s consent
during litigation
when the person is a police suspect
marketing efforts by health providers
research
situations in which confidentiality can be legally violated
when a patient gives permission
when a clinician has cause to suspect abuse of children, elderly, or disabled
when a clinician has belief that the patient is likely to harm themself or attempt suicide
when the clinician has belief that the patient is likely to harm a specified other person
privileged communication
confidential information that is protected from being disclosed during legal proceedings
criminal responsibility
the determination that a defendant’s crime was the product of both an action or attempted action (the criminal behavior) and the intention to perform that action
insanity
legal concept of whether a person was criminally responsible at the time they committed the crime
right to refuse treatment
unless a patient is a danger to themself or others in that exact moment, they cannot be forced to take medication
The M’Naughten Test
a legal test in which a person is considered insane if, because of a defect of reason from a disease of the mind, he or she did not know what they were doing at the time of committing the act and did not know that it was wrong
The Irresistible Impulse Test
a legal test in which a person is considered insane if he or she knew the criminal behavior was wrong but nonetheless performed it because of an irresistible impulse
The Durham Test
a legal test in which a person is considered insane if an irresistible impulse to perform criminal behavior was due to a mental defect or disorder present at the time of the crime
(still used in New Hampshire)
The American Legal Institute Test
a legal test in which a defendant is considered insane if he or she either lacks a substantial capacity to appreciate that his/her behavior was wrong, or has a diminished ability to make his/her behavior conform to the law
used today in federal court
Insanity Defense Reform Acts of 1984 and 1988
restrict the American Legal Institute Test to consider diminished capacity, end the irresistible impulse element, and regulate that just having a disorder in itself is not enough for an insanity defense
diminished capacity
a person, due to mental illness or defect, was less able to understand that the criminal behavior was wrong or to formulate a specific intention; the person is still considered guilty but receives modifications
