[Difference between the cognitive and control ability and the responsibility in forensic psychiatry evaluation].

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the difference between the cognitive and control ability and the responsibility in forensic psychiatry evaluation. METHODS: To compare the results of the responsibility evaluation from 2001.1 to 2006.10 (the first period) with that of the cognitive and control ability evaluation from 2006.11 to 2010.10 (the second period). The admissibility opinions on court judgment and evaluation were investigated by return visit. The legal professions' opinions on forensic psychiatric issues from the police office, the procuratorate, the court, and the judiciary were investigated. RESULTS: There was no significant difference of the criminal types between two periods (P > 0.05). There was significant difference of the diagnostic types between two periods (P < 0.05). The proportion of normal range and part loss of the cognitive and control ability in the second period were higher than that in the first period, but the proportion of complete loss of the cognitive and control ability in the second period was lower than that in the first period (P < 0.05). Among the legal professions, 70.5% of them thought that "the evaluation of cognitive and control ability" was different from "the evaluation of criminal responsibility" and 94.9% of them thought that "to confirm the influence of the forensic psychiatric evaluation of mental disorder on the crime behavior" or "to assess of cognitive and control ability" met requirements of normative judicial expertise. CONCLUSION: The evaluation of cognitive and control ability is more aligned with legal requirements and behavioral norms of own subject than the evaluation of responsibility.

Activation of apoptotic pathways in the absence of cell death in an inner-ear immortomouse cell line.

Aminoglycoside antibiotics and cisplatin (CDDP) are the major ototoxins of clinical medicine due to their capacity to cause significant and permanent hearing loss by targeting the mammalian sensory cells. Understanding the pathogenesis of damage is the first step in designing effective prevention of drug-induced hearing loss. In-vitro systems greatly enhance the efficiency of biochemical and molecular investigations through ease of access and manipulation. HEI-OC1, an inner ear cell line derived from the immortomouse, expresses markers for auditory sensory cells and, therefore, is a potential tool to study the ototoxic mechanisms of drugs like aminoglycoside antibiotics and CDDP. HEI-OC1 cells (and also HeLa cells) efficiently take up fluorescently tagged gentamicin and respond to drug treatment with changes in cell death and survival signaling pathways. Within hours, the c-Jun N-terminal kinase pathway and the transcription factor AP-1 were activated and at later times, the "executioner caspase", caspase-3. These responses were robust and elicited by both gentamicin and kanamycin. However, despite the initiation of apoptotic pathways and transient changes in nuclear morphology, cell death was not observed following aminoglycoside treatment, while administration of CDDP led to significant cell death as determined by flow cytometric measurements; ß-galactosidase analysis ruled out senescence in gentamicin-treated cells. The ability to withstand treatment with aminoglycosides but not with CDDP suggests that this cell line might be helpful in providing some insight into the differential actions of the two ototoxic drugs.