Gun violence among young adults with a juvenile crime record in North Carolina: Implications for firearm restrictions based on age and risk.

Youth who acquire a juvenile crime record may be at increased risk of perpetrating gun violence as adults. North Carolina and 22 other states permit young adults who were adjudicated by a juvenile court - even for some felony-equivalent offenses - to legally access firearms. Effectiveness of gun restrictions for adults with juvenile crime histories has not been systematically studied. This article reports findings from a longitudinal study of arrests and convictions for gun-involved and other offenses in 51,059 young adults in North Carolina, comparing those with gun-disqualifying and not-disqualifying juvenile records. The annualized rate of arrest for gun-involved crime in those with a felony-level juvenile record was 9 times higher than the rate of reported comparable offenses in the same age group in the North Carolina general population (3349 vs. 376 per 100,000). Among those with a felony-equivalent juvenile delinquency adjudication who became legally eligible to possess firearms at age 18, 61.8% were later arrested for any criminal offense, 14.3% for a firearm-involved offense. Crimes with guns were most likely to occur among young adults who had committed more serious (felony or equivalent) offenses before age 18; had been adjudicated at younger ages; acquired a felony conviction as a youth; and spent time in prison. The prevalence of arrests for crimes involving guns among young adults in North Carolina with a gun-disqualifying felony record acquired before age 18 suggests that the federal gun prohibitor conferred by a felony record is not highly effective as currently implemented in this population. From a risk-based perspective, these restrictions appear to be justified; better implementation and enforcement may improve their effectiveness. Gun crime prevention policies and interventions should focus on these populations and on limiting illegal access to firearms.

Consent Issues in the Management of Acute Ischemic Stroke: AAN Position Statement.

This position statement briefly reviews the principle of informed consent, the elements of decisional capacity, and how acute stroke may affect this capacity. It further reviews the role of surrogate decision-making, including advance directives, next of kin, physician orders for life-sustaining treatment, and guardianship. In some cases of acute stroke in which the patient lacks decisional capacity and no advance directives or surrogates are available, consent to treatment may be presumed. The document describes the rationale for this position and various considerations regarding its application to IV thrombolysis, neuroendovascular intervention, decompressive craniectomy, and pediatric stroke. The document also reviews consent issues in acute stroke research.

Expedited Diversion of Criminal Defendants to Court-Ordered Treatment.

The authors propose a formal statutory diversion process for offenders with serious mental disorders: expedited diversion to court-ordered treatment (EDCOT). As a civil commitment proceeding accompanied by dismissal of criminal charges, EDCOT would not entail a waiver of criminal trial rights and could be invoked even if the defendant lacked trial competence. EDCOT would also be available to authorize civil hospitalization of offenders who are not immediately able to function successfully in the community. These provisions, coupled with mandated compliance with outpatient treatment and judicial supervision, would enable diversion of many, perhaps most, offenders with serious mental disorders into a treatment system that could provide acute services, discharge planning, and problem-solving management in the community.

Ethical Considerations in Dementia Diagnosis and Care: AAN Position Statement.

Alzheimer disease and other dementias present unique practical challenges for patients, their families, clinicians, and health systems. These challenges reflect not only the growing public health effect of dementia in an aging global population, but also more specific ethical complexities including early loss of patients' capacity to make decisions regarding their own care, the stigma often associated with a dementia diagnosis, the difficulty of balancing concern for patients' welfare with respect for patients' remaining independence, and the effect on the physical, emotional, and financial well-being of family caregivers. Caring for patients with dementia requires respecting patient autonomy while acknowledging progressively diminishing decisional capacity and continuing to provide care in accordance with other core ethical principles (beneficence, justice, and nonmaleficence). Whereas these ethical principles remain unchanged, neurologists must reconsider how to apply them given changes across multiple domains including our understanding of disease, clinical and legal tools for addressing manifestations of illness, our expanding awareness of the crucial role of family caregivers in providing care and maintaining patient quality of life, and societal conceptions of dementia and individuals' personal expectations for aging. This revision to the American Academy of Neurology's 1996 position statement summarizes ethical considerations that often arise in caring for patients with dementia; although it addresses how such considerations influence patient management, it is not a clinical practice guideline.

A New Commitment Pathway for Offenders With Serious Mental Illness: Expedited Diversion to Court-Ordered Treatment.

The authors propose a new form of civil commitment that would benefit individuals with serious mental illness involved with the criminal justice system. This population has complex needs rooted in comorbid conditions, alienation from treatment and support systems, and poor access to care. Although many dollars are spent on costly assessments and hospitalization of jail detainees with serious mental illness to ensure that they are competent to stand trial, these detainees typically do not receive adequate services during incarceration or after release and recidivate at high rates. The proposed commitment pathway would expeditiously divert offenders with serious mental illness into treatment, providing services under court supervision while avoiding unnecessary and often fruitless interactions with the criminal justice system.

AAN position statement: The COVID-19 pandemic and the ethical duties of the neurologist.

Patients, clinicians, and hospitals have undergone monumental changes during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. This crisis has forced us to consider the obligations that we neurologists have to our individual patients as well as the greater community. By returning to our fundamental understanding of these duties, we can ensure that we are providing the most ethically appropriate contingency and crisis care possible. We recommend specific adaptations to both the inpatient and outpatient settings, as well as changes to medical and trainee education. Furthermore, we explore the daunting but potentially necessary implementation of scare resource allocation protocols. As the pandemic evolves, we will need to adapt continuously to these rapidly changing circumstances and consider both national and regional standards and variation.

Pain Management and Opioid Regulation: Continuing Public Health Challenges.

The still-growing US opioid epidemic lies at the intersection of two major public health challenges: reducing suffering from pain and containing the rising toll of harms associated with the use of opioids medications. Responding successfully to these challenges requires a substantial investment in surveillance and research on many fronts and a coordinated policy response by federal and state agencies and stakeholder organizations.A 2017 report of the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NASEM) called for improved methods of measuring pain and the effects of alternative modalities of treatment as well as intensive surveillance of opioid-related harms; urged a long-term cultural transformation of how pain is perceived, assessed and treated; and outlined a comprehensive and balanced public health framework to guide Food and Drug Administration approval, monitoring, and review of opioids.We, authors of the NASEM report, use the articles published in this special section of AJPH as a platform for commenting on the public health burden of pain, the role of opioids in managing pain, global disparities in access to opioids for pain management, divergent approaches to opioid regulation, and the challenge of striking a reasonable balance between the needs of patients in pain and the prevention of opioid-related harms.

Resource Document on Risk-Based Gun Removal Laws.

(Reprinted with permission from APA Resource Document, June 2018).

Determination of Death by Neurologic Criteria in the United States: The Case for Revising the Uniform Determination of Death Act.

Although death by neurologic criteria (brain death) is legally recognized throughout the United States, state laws and clinical practice vary concerning three key issues: (1) the medical standards used to determine death by neurologic criteria, (2) management of family objections before determination of death by neurologic criteria, and (3) management of religious objections to declaration of death by neurologic criteria. The American Academy of Neurology and other medical stakeholder organizations involved in the determination of death by neurologic criteria have undertaken concerted action to address variation in clinical practice in order to ensure the integrity of brain death determination. To complement this effort, state policymakers must revise legislation on the use of neurologic criteria to declare death. We review the legal history and current laws regarding neurologic criteria to declare death and offer proposed revisions to the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA) and the rationale for these recommendations.

An interdisciplinary response to contemporary concerns about brain death determination.

In response to a number of recent lawsuits related to brain death determination, the American Academy of Neurology Ethics, Law, and Humanities Committee convened a multisociety quality improvement summit in October 2016 to address, and potentially correct, aspects of brain death determination within the purview of medical practice that may have contributed to these lawsuits. This article, which has been endorsed by multiple societies that are stakeholders in brain death determination, summarizes the discussion at this summit, wherein we (1) reaffirmed the validity of determination of death by neurologic criteria and the use of the American Academy of Neurology practice guideline to determine brain death in adults; (2) discussed the development of systems to ensure that brain death determination is consistent and accurate; (3) reviewed strategies to respond to objections to determination of death by neurologic criteria; and (4) outlined goals to improve public trust in brain death determination.

Combined effects of peer presence, social cues, and rewards on cognitive control in adolescents.

Developmental scientists have examined the independent effects of peer presence, social cues, and rewards on adolescent decision-making and cognitive control. Yet, these contextual factors often co-occur in real world social situations. The current study examined the combined effects of all three factors on cognitive control, and its underlying neural circuitry, using a task to better capture adolescents' real world social interactions. A sample of 176 participants ages 13-25, was scanned while performing an adapted go/no-go task alone or in the presence of a virtual peer. The task included brief positive social cues and sustained periods of positive arousal. Adolescents showed diminished cognitive control to positive social cues when anticipating a reward in the presence of peers relative to when alone, a pattern not observed in older participants. This behavioral pattern was paralleled by enhanced orbitofrontal activation. The results demonstrate the synergistic impact of social and reward influences on cognitive control in adolescents.

Personal Control Over Decisions to Participate in Research by Persons With Histories of Both Substance Use Disorders and Criminal Justice Supervision.

Individuals must feel free to exert personal control over decisions regarding research participation. We present an examination of participants' perceived personal control over, as well as reported pressures and threats from others, influencing their decision to join a study assessing the effectiveness of extended-release naltrexone in preventing opioid dependence relapse. Most participants endorsed a strong sense of control over the decision; few reported pressures or threats. Although few in number, participants' brief narrative descriptions of the pressures and threats are illuminating and provide context for their perceptions of personal control. Based on this work, we propose a useful set of tools to help ascertain participants' sense of personal control in joining research.