From posts to protection: Ethical considerations regarding forensic psychiatrists and a duty to warn based on social media.

Increasing use of social media in forensic mental health evaluations will lead to new challenges that must be resolved by forensic practitioners and the legal system. One such dilemma is the discovery of information that would typically trigger a legal duty and professional ethics obligation for mental health professionals to breach doctor-patient confidentiality to promote public safety and prevent harm to vulnerable third parties. Although the law and professional organizations offer clear guidance for practitioners in the treatment role, there is currently no clarity from the law or instruction from professional organizations on what mental health professionals should do if they discover such information during a confidential forensic evaluation. For example, a forensic evaluator may find evidence on social media of an evaluee's threats to seriously harm others, abuse of children and the elderly, or severely impaired driving. There are no clear guidelines for how a forensic psychiatrist should respond in these complicated situations. We review the legal concepts and historical evolution of confidentiality, privilege, and mandated reporter duties that forensic practitioners should consider in these legally ambiguous situations. Finally, we discuss ethics frameworks practitioners can implement to determine their most ethical course of action when faced with such dilemmas.

Tarasoff in Missouri: The jurisprudence of a mental health provider's duty to warn and protect non-patients of potential risks from patients.

In 1976, the Supreme Court of California issued its well-known Tarasoff Principle. From this principle, other courts found a duty to warn, and some found more than just a duty to warn, a duty to protect. As courts in other states adopted a version of the Tarasoff Principle, they issued a wide variety of third-party liability rules. In light of the dynamic, everchanging Tarasoff jurisprudence in the United States and recent relevant appellate court opinion in Missouri, a timely updated summary and update of Tarasoff-related jurisprudence in Missouri is warranted. In the present analysis, we compiled the four appellate court decisions that pertained to the questions of Tarasoff-like third-party liability in the State of Missouri: Sherrill v. Wilson (1983), Matt v. Burrell (1995), Bradley v. Ray (1995), and Virgin v. Hopewell (2001). We reviewed all legal measures for clinicians to protect nonpatients in Missouri, not just those that relate to protecting nonpatients from violence as in a Tarasof-like scenario. Thus, this paper concisely provides a compendium of such options and allows for a meaningful comparison of which legal, protective measures are mandatory and which are permissive, thereby evoking the question of whether measures of protecting nonpatients from a patient's violent acts ought to be mandatory duties or permissive application of professional judgment.

Responsabilização em más condutas científicas: opinião de editores do SciELO / Accountability to scientific misconduct: the SciELO editors' view / Responsabilidad por malas conductas científicas: opinión de los editores de SciELO

Responsabilização (accountability) em comunicação e editoração científica é um importante tema em ética e integridade em pesquisa, e um dos grandes desafios atuais da ciência. Este artigo apresenta um estudo descritivo sobre a responsabilização e os seus atores na comunicação científica (autores, revisores, editores), partindo da questão da responsabilização desses atores e das más condutas científicas vista por editores de revista SciELO do Brasil e de países da América Latina. Apresenta resultados a partir da visão dos editores em que os autores são responsáveis, e, parcialmente, os revisores e os próprios editores

Accountability in scientific communication and publishing is an important topic in ethics and research integrity, and one of the great challenges of science today. This article presents a descriptive study on accountability and its actors in scientific communication (authors, reviewers, editors), starting from the issue of accountability of these actors and from the scientific misconducts viewed by SciELO journals editors in Brazil and Latin America. Based on the editors' view, it stands that the authors are responsible, and the reviewers and the editors are partially responsible

La responsabilidad (accountability) en la comunicación y publicación científica es un tema importante en la ética y la integridad en la investigación, y uno de los grandes desafíos de la ciencia actual. Este artículo presenta un estudio descriptivo sobre la responsabilidad y sus actores en la comunicación científica (autores, revisores, editores), a partir de la cuestión de responsabilidad de estos actores y de las malas conductas científicas vista por los editores de revista SciELO en Brasil y en países de América Latina. Presenta resultados en la visión de los editores de que los autores son responsables, y los revisores y los propios editores son parcialmente responsables.

A 20-year follow-up survey of police officers' experience with Tarasoff warnings: How law enforcement reacts to clinicians' duty to protect.

Since the Tarasoff case of 1976, mental health professionals are recognized to have a "duty to protect" third-party targets from violence-threatening patients, but little is known about what happens after clinicians warn law enforcement. In 2000, Huber et al. published a study that surveyed Michigan police about "Tarasoff warnings." We conducted a 20-year follow-up study, inviting all Michigan police and sheriff departments to participate. There were no significant differences between studies about knowledge of Tarasoff-related policies, which was low in both surveys. We found significant decreases in the number of officers who had ever intervened due to warning calls. Of the survey respondents, 83% supported documenting warning calls. For those who received warnings, 96% followed up with at least one intervention. In both studies, notifying other officers was the most common action taken. 56% said they would take action to remove a firearm. We identified opportunities for training law enforcement.

The health professional's duty to warn of preconception risks.

Richard Griffith, Head of Health Law and Ethics in the School of Health and Social Care at Swansea University, looks at the law around negligence for disabilities in a child caused by a failure to warn of preconception risks.

Patient confidentiality, the duty to protect, and psychotherapeutic care: perspectives from the philosophy of ubuntu.

This paper demonstrates how ubuntu relational philosophy may be used to ground beneficial coercive care without necessarily violating a patient's dignity. Specifically, it argues that ubuntu philosophy is a useful theory for developing necessary conditions for determining a patient's potential dangerousness; setting reasonable limits to the duty to protect; balancing the long-term good of providing unimpeded therapy for patients who need it with the short-term good of protecting at-risk parties; and advancing a framework for future case law and appropriate regulations in the care of psychotherapy patients. Issues regarding the decision to breach medical confidentiality in psychotherapeutic care are ultimately reserved for the courts. Professional assessment might be an important first step in this process, and court rulings govern most aspects of this assessment. However, current case law, especially in the United States, places an unreasonable expectation on psychotherapists to protect all at-risk parties or foresee that a patient intends to follow through on said threats. It has largely failed to guarantee psychotherapy patients unlimited access to care, while potentially inhibiting future honest communication between patients and health professionals and endangering the safety of others. Of these decisions, the two most prominent are the 1976 Tarasoff decision and the 2016 Volk decision. This paper argues for the possibility of grounding good laws in ubuntu African philosophy in a way that protects others from harm and ensures unimpeded access to care without necessarily breaching medical confidentiality.

Florida Law Enforcement Policies for and Experience With Tarasoff-Like Reporting.

Mandatory duty to warn law enforcement for mental health professionals in Florida took effect on July 1, 2019, as part of the recommendations from the Marjory Stoneman Douglas School (Parkland) Shooting Commission's report. Prior to this, Florida had been a permissive Tarasoff state. Although this change was intended to promote public safety, there is scant literature on the interactions between mental health providers and law enforcement related to Tarasoff situations. The objective of this study is to determine the degree to which Florida law enforcement agencies have knowledge, experience, and policies dealing with a serious threat made by a patient. An invitation to participate in a survey was distributed to police departments, sheriffs' offices, and 911 stations using email and traditional paper mail. The response rate was 11 percent (47 of 416) to an emailed questionnaire and 22 percent (82 of 369) to a paper-based follow-up survey. The surveys were completed by 31 percent (129 of 416) of potential respondents. Between 80 and 90 percent of all agencies have policies and procedures on what to do if a warning call from a mental health provider is received, which, for the majority of respondents, was the same policy as if notified about a suicidal individual.

Desafios e conflitos bioéticos da covid-19: contexto da saúde global / Covid-19 bioethical challenges and conflicts: global health context / Desafíos y conflictos bioéticos de la covid-19: contexto de salud global

Resumo A pandemia desencadeada pela covid-19, imersa em muitas incertezas, suscita uma série de conflitos éticos. O objetivo deste artigo é refletir sobre esses conflitos e sobre os distintos interesses envolvidos no atual cenário. O horizonte da análise crítica é a bioética global, e o foco do estudo é o Brasil, onde os problemas de saúde decorrentes da covid-19 não têm sido abordados de forma integrada à diplomacia internacional. No país, a oposição simplista entre saúde e economia tem servido de base para decisões estratégicas e medidas de contenção do vírus. No entanto, as variáveis a se considerar são múltiplas, e é necessário um balizador ético, como a responsabilidade dos agentes políticos quanto ao desfecho de suas decisões.

Abstract Characterized by extreme uncertainty, the Covid-19 outbreak raises important ethical conflicts. In this article, we reflect on these conflicts and the different interests involved in the current scenario. Our critical analysis is based on global bioethics, and focused on Brazil, where public health issues have not been properly integrated with international diplomacy. The simplistic opposition between health and economy has been used as a decision-making strategy and to establish measures to control the virus. However, there are several variables in this context, and an ethical guideline becomes necessary, especially for the decisions made by politicians in the country.

Resumen La pandemia desencadenada por la covid-19, inmersa en muchas incertidumbres, genera una serie de conflictos éticos. Este artículo tiene como objetivo contribuir para la reflexión sobre estos conflictos y sobre los distintos intereses implicados en el escenario actual. El horizonte del análisis crítico es la bioética global, y el estudio se concentra en Brasil, donde los problemas de salud derivados de la covid-19 no han sido abordados de forma integrada a la diplomacia internacional. En este país, la oposición simplista entre salud y economía ha servido de base para decisiones estratégicas y medidas de contención del virus. Sin embargo, múltiples son las variables que se deben tener en cuenta, y son necesarias referencias éticas, como la responsabilidad de los agentes políticos en cuanto al desenlace de sus decisiones.

Termo de consentimento informado: impacto na decisão judicial / Informed consent: impact on court decisions / Formulario de consentimiento informado: impacto en la decisión judicial

Resumo O termo de consentimento informado é fundamental na relação jurídica entre médico e paciente. Visando avaliar seu impacto na sentença judicial, realizou-se estudo retrospectivo de 70 processos de responsabilidade civil envolvendo procedimentos médicos estéticos cirúrgicos e não cirúrgicos com termo de consentimento assinado pelos pacientes. Os casos analisados, julgados entre 2014 e 2016, foram selecionados nos sites dos tribunais brasileiros e classificados em dois grupos: médicos absolvidos (51%) e condenados (49%). No primeiro grupo, 39% das absolvições se embasaram na apresentação adequada do termo de consentimento informado, enquanto, no segundo, 50% dos médicos foram condenados por não o ter incluído. Portanto, o termo de consentimento informado se destaca nos julgamentos de erro médico. O dever de informar é um dos pilares da responsabilidade civil desse profissional e, quando negligenciado, constitui fator substancial para condenação.

Abstract The informed consent form is essential in the physician-patient relationship. To evaluate its impact on court decisions, we conducted a retrospective study of 70 civil suits involving surgical and non-surgical aesthetic medical procedures with an informed consent form signed by patients. The cases, judged between 2014 and 2016, were selected from Brazilian courts websites and classified into two groups: acquitted (51%) and convicted (49%) doctors. In the first group, 39% of acquittals were based on the proper presentation of the informed consent form, whereas in the second 50% of the professionals were convicted for not including the document. The informed consent thus stands out when judging medical errors, and the duty to warn is one of the pillars of the professional liability and, when neglected, becomes a substantial factor for their conviction.

Resumen El formulario de consentimiento informado es fundamental en la relación jurídica entre médico y paciente. Para evaluar su impacto en sentencias judiciales, se realizó un estudio retrospectivo con 70 procesos de responsabilidad civil relacionados con procedimientos médicos estéticos quirúrgicos y no quirúrgicos con el formulario de consentimiento firmado por los pacientes. Los casos analizados, juzgados entre 2014 y 2016, fueron seleccionados en los sitios web de los tribunales brasileños y clasificados en dos grupos: médicos absueltos (51%) y condenados (49%). En el primer grupo, el 39% de las absoluciones se basaron en la presentación adecuada del formulario de consentimiento; en el segundo, en el 50% de los casos se condenaron a los médicos por no incluir este documento. Por tanto, el formulario de consentimiento informado se destaca en los juicios por error médico. El deber de informar es uno de los pilares de la responsabilidad civil del médico, y su incumplimiento constituye un factor sustancial de condena.

Disclosing genetic information to family members without consent: Five Australian case studies.

Genetic risk information is relevant to individual patients and also their blood relatives. Health practitioners (HPs) routinely advise patients of the importance of sharing genetic information with family members, especially for clinically actionable conditions where prevention is possible. However, some patients refuse to share genetic results with at-risk relatives, and HPs must choose whether to use or disclose genetic information without consent. This requires an understanding of their legal and ethical obligations, which research shows many HPs do not have. A recent UK case held that HPs have a duty to a patient's relatives where there is a proximate relationship, to conduct a balancing exercise of the benefit of disclosure of the genetic risk information to the relative against the interest of the patient in maintaining confidentiality. In Australia, there is currently no legal duty to disclose genetic information to a patient's at-risk relatives, but there are laws and guidelines governing unconsented use/disclosure of genetic information. These laws are inconsistent across different Australian states and health contexts, requiring greater harmonisation. Here we provide an up-to-date and clinically accessible resource summarising the laws applying to HPs across Australia, and outline five Australian case studies which have arisen in clinical genetics services, regarding the disclosure of genetic results to relatives without consent. The issues addressed here are relevant to any Australian HP with access to genetic information, as well as HPs and policy-makers in other jurisdictions considering these issues.

Disclosure to genetic relatives without consent - Australian genetic professionals' awareness of the health privacy law.

BACKGROUND: When a genetic mutation is identified in a family member (proband), internationally, it is usually the proband's or another responsible family member's role to disclose the information to at-risk relatives. However, both active and passive non-disclosure in families occurs: choosing not to communicate the information or failing to communicate the information despite intention to do so, respectively. The ethical obligations to prevent harm to at-risk relatives and promote the duty of care by genetic health professionals (GHPs) is in conflict with Privacy laws and professional regulations that prohibits disclosure of information to a third party without the consent of the proband (duty of confidentiality). In New South Wales (NSW), Australia, amendments to Privacy legislation permits such disclosure to living genetic relatives with the process defined under guidelines although there is no legal duty to warn. This study assessed NSW GHP's awareness and experience of the legislation and guidelines. METHODS: An online survey collected demographics; theoretical knowledge; clinical scenarios to assess application knowledge; attitudes; confidence; experience with active non-disclosure. A link to correct answers was provided after completion. Knowledge scores above the median for non-parametric data or above the mean for parametric data were classified as 'good' or 'poor'. Chi square tests assessed associations between confidence and knowledge scores. RESULTS: While many of the 37 participants reported reading the guidelines, there was limited awareness of their scope and clinical application; that there is no legal duty to warn; and that the threat does not need to be imminent to warrant disclosure. No association between confidence and 'good' theoretical or applied clinical knowledge was identified. Uncertainty of their professional responsibility was identified and in the several case examples of active non-disclosure that were reported this uncertainty reflected the need for further understanding of the guidelines in regard to the processes required before disclosure was initiated. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for further education and training about the guidelines associated with the legislation that would be relevant to support disclosure. The findings may inform future strategies to support introduction of policy changes in other jurisdictions where similar regulatory regimes are introduced.

Legal Challenges in Genetics, Including Duty to Warn and Genetic Discrimination.

This review will explore two legal issues in genetic counseling: genetic discrimination and the duty to warn. It emphasizes the complexity and variability of federal and state genetic nondiscrimination protections in the United States and how the many gaps in such protections may affect people pursuing genetic testing. The limited law addressing legal obligations genetic counselors owe at-risk relatives likely does not require counselors to warn relatives directly about genetic risks. Whether it permits them to make such disclosures, however, is more uncertain and may depend on the jurisdiction.