legal issues

Question 1

charter of rights and freedoms

Answer 1

provisions allowing ppl to be removed from society if infringe on the rights of others

MI under disabled rights

Question 2

criminal vs civil committment

Answer 2

criminal: procedure to confine person in mental institute
- to determine competency for trial or determine NCRMD
- federal law, same across provs

civil: under provincial law, procedure when MI person may/not have broken law but can be deprived of liberty and put in psych hospital
- when risk to others, self

Question 3

canadian law origins

Answer 3

english common law

quebec napoleonic law

Question 4

insanity defense

Answer 4

rarely used when was in place
- only for severely disordered ppl

“insane” ppl detained longer than reg sentence

Question 5

m’nagten rule

Answer 5

m’nagten rule: to establish insanity defense, must prove that person was insane AT TIME OF CRIME
- did not know actions
- did not know right from wrong

m’nagten: wanted to kill PM robert peel, instead killed edward drummand
- said god wanted it
- 1843

Question 6

NGRI vs NCRMD

Answer 6

NGRI: not guilty by reason of insanity

NCRMD: not criminally responsible on account of mental disorder

changed to NCRMD by 1992 changes to bill c-30

Question 7

other bill c-30 changes

Answer 7

1992

board decides fate w/in 45 days of verdict
- changed after regina v swain
- boards weigh risks of current mental state and risk to society
- can discharge w conditions or confine

Question 8

lucia pioresan

Answer 8

killed 2y/o neighbour believed was reincarnated son who died of AIDs

criminal committment to this day, NCRMD

Question 9

neurolaw

Answer 9

introduction of neuroscientific data to legal system
- to REDUCE sentence severity, not prove innocence

argument: MI ppl have brain dysfunction and processing deficits

Question 10

fitness to stand trial

Answer 10

can be NCRMD but competent to stand trial

fitness interview test: sees if person understand nature/process of legal proceedings, consequences, can communicate w lawyer

Question 11

criteria to be admitted w/o will

Answer 11

1. mentally ill AND
2. danger to self, cannot sustain need
3. danger to others

Question 12

formal vs informal committment

Answer 12

formal: COURT issued, person has right to object
- permits ex parte hearing before justice of peace
- detain fro 72 hours to assess

informal: EMERGENCY committment of MI person by hospita, etc. w/o courts
- too dangerous to release
- greater in civil commitment

Question 13

CTOs

Answer 13

allow release into community under conditions/treatment plan
- forces to be treated

canadian psych associaton supports mandatory treamtnet
- CTOs imp for ppl w insight deficits

advantages: societal obligation to care for others, ppl w MI can lack awareness, no negative effects

disadvantages: takes care away from ppl who want it, coercion by society, difficult to protect rights

Question 14

mental health and violence

Answer 14

positive correlation, but MI ppl do NOT make up maj of violence…only 3%

90% psychotics not risk

violence in w subs abuse

Question 15

prediction of dangerousness

Answer 15

central to civil commitment
- assess risk rather than dangerousness

professionals overestimate incidence of violence

Question 16

VRAG

Answer 16

violence risk appraisal guide
- use stat models to predict likelihood of violence
- uses stat formulas w predictors of dangerousness, weighted

Question 17

PLC-R

Answer 17

20 items scale for psychopathy
- max score 40
- predicts resp to therapy, violence, recidivism

psychologist also interviews ppl who know individ

1% incidence gen pop, 15-20% in prison

Question 18

psychopath features

Answer 18

• lack fear in social and phys situations
• surface charm, lack empathy
  10-15% almost psych

Question 19

HCR-20

Answer 19

structured assessment device in canada

historical variables, clinical varis, risk varis

Question 20

winko v british columbia

Answer 20

if there’s uncertainty abt risk of individ, the province must resolve uncertainty
- release if cannot prove dangerous
- release if cannot resolve

Question 21

regina v rogers

Answer 21

MI ppl have right to refuse treatment, even if civilly committed against will

ontario, quebec, manitoba: right
pei, nfl&l, bc: not a right
alberta: apply to panel to override

Question 22

bad ethics in research

Answer 22

POWs in WWII

residential schools: vitamin c deficiency, banned food additives, drugs

tuskgee alabama study: men denyed syphilis treatment 40 yrs

Question 23

documents of medical research ethics

Answer 23

tri-council policy: respect for persons, concern for welfare, justice
nuremberg code
declaration of helenski
medical research council of canada

Question 24

properties of ethics

Answer 24

informed consent
end any time
confidentiality: no sharing w 3rd party

Question 25

threats to ethical standards

Answer 25

1. internationalization of research: developing countries dont have same ethical standards
2. increasing for-profit research: don’t follow boards of non-profits, not approved research

Question 26

privileged communication

Answer 26

communication b/w parties in confidential relationships is protected by canadian law

husband-wife
lawyer-client
therapist-client

limits to right: must disclose when child abuse if person under 18 when reported
- if other MH pro or doc engages in sexual activity w patient
- duty to warn and protect victims

Question 27

tarasoff v regents

Answer 27

says when a therapist MUST breach right to privileged communication