Multibeam bathymetric surveys of submarine volcanoes and mega-pockmarks on the Chatham Rise, New Zealand

Author Posting. © The Author(s), 2011. This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of Taylor & Francis for personal use, not for redistribution. The definitive version was published in New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics 54 (2011): 329-339, doi:10.1080/00288306.2011.589860.Multibeam bathymetric surveys east of the South Island of New Zealand present images of submarine volcanoes and pockmarks west of Urry Knolls on the Chatham Rise, and evidence of submarine erosion on the southern margin of the Chatham Rise. Among numerous volcanic cones, diameters of the largest reach ~2000 m, and some stand as high as 400 m above the surrounding seafloor. The tops of most of the volcanic cones are flat, with hints of craters, and some with asymmetric shapes may show flank collapses. There are hints of both northeast-southwest and northwest-southeast alignments of volcanoes, but no associated faulting is apparent. Near and to the west of these volcanoes, huge pockmarks, some more than ~1 km in diameter, disrupt bottom topography. Pockmarks in this region seem to be confined to sea floor shallower than ~1200 m, but we see evidence of deeper pockmarks at water depths of up to 2100 m on profiles crossing the Bounty Trough. The pockmark field on the Chatham Rise seems to be bounded on the south by a trough near 1200 m depth; like others, we presume that contour currents have eroded the margin and created the trough.This research was supported by the National Science Foundation under grants EAR-0409564, EAR-0409609, and EAR-0409835.2012-08-3

Communication in Psychiatric Coercive Treatment and Patients’ Decisional Capacity to Consent

An effective communication and the acquisition of a valid consent is central to a good and supporting doctor-patient relationship and a clinician’s ethical obligation in o order to respect patients’ autonomy, as well as their right to be involved in treatment decisions. However, often clinicians face several issues in performing this task, among which the most frequently reported are the fear of hurting the patient by communicating a bad diagnosis or not knowing how to manage the patient’s emotional reactions. In addition, there are vulnerable populations, such as those represented by psychiatric patients, who are at higher risk of decisional incapacity. Especially for those patients it is in fact particularly difficult for clinicians to find the proper balance between respecting the right of capable patients to make choices about their treatment and the right of incapable patients to be protected from the possible harmful consequences of their improper decisions. However, nor the presence of a severe psychiatric disorder nor a status of “involuntary hospitalized patient” have been reported to be a label for incapacity. Several tools have been developed to assist clinicians in patients’ decisional capacity evaluations, together with interventions aimed at enhancing informed consent acquisition in order to achieve a shared decision-making and lead the patient to become actively involved in his/her treatment decisions. Such approach would lead to a decrease in the perceived coercion, often reported in mental health care setting also from patients who are not involuntarily hospitalized, and to an increase in patients’ adherence to treatment