Legal Issues Relating to Electroconvulsive Therapy

A survey of 54 psychiatric units disclosed that 49 (91%) were using electroconvulsive (ECT), principally for major depressive illnesses. During the five-year period 1964 to 1968, fractures and other complications of ECT were uncommon. Sudden death was reported in seven cases. During this period, none of the respondents or their affiliated physicians had been involved in lawsuits relating to the use of ECT. In general, suits for injuries occasioned by the use of ECT seem to be declining. Possible remaining problem areas are the performance of ECT without the prior consent of the patient; the failure to have facilities and personnel available for managing cardiorespiratory emergencies occurring during ECT; failure to diagnose or treat an ECT-related injury; and perhaps the failure to use ECT where the indications are compelling

The Role of Judges in Life/Death Decisions for the Neurologically Impaired

The Massachusetts Supreme Court has recently ruled that decisions about withholding care from hopelessly ill, legally incapacitated patients must be made by judges. It clearly rejected the view that families and attending physicians should be empowered to make such decisions. In this respect, the ruling contrasts with that of the Quinlan case and highlights the issue of whether judges or physicians and families are better able to make medically and morally sound decisions respecting this class of patients

Legal Implications of Epilepsy

Physicians who care for patients with epilepsy may function as agents or targets of social control. As agents, they may assist in the identification and control of epileptic drivers, may provide information that enables fair and appropriate job placements for epileptic persons, and give testimony that helps the legal system resolve issues relating to the liability of epileptic persons for harm attributed to seizures or interictal behavioral disturbances. As targets, they may be charged with negligent failure to diagnose, treat, or inform about epilepsy or its associated problems, with failure to exercise due care in protecting persons harmed by their patients, or with failure to preserve confidentiality of medical information. Although legislation and judicial decisions have defined some of the physician’s legal duties with reasonable clarity, areas of uncertainty remain, particularly regarding the issue of violating medical confidentiality for the benefit of persons other than the patient

Legal Issues Relating to Electroconvulsive Therapy

A survey of 54 psychiatric units disclosed that 49 (91%) were using electroconvulsive (ECT), principally for major depressive illnesses. During the five-year period 1964 to 1968, fractures and other complications of ECT were uncommon. Sudden death was reported in seven cases. During this period, none of the respondents or their affiliated physicians had been involved in lawsuits relating to the use of ECT. In general, suits for injuries occasioned by the use of ECT seem to be declining. Possible remaining problem areas are the performance of ECT without the prior consent of the patient; the failure to have facilities and personnel available for managing cardiorespiratory emergencies occurring during ECT; failure to diagnose or treat an ECT-related injury; and perhaps the failure to use ECT where the indications are compelling

Legal Implications of Epilepsy

Physicians who care for patients with epilepsy may function as agents or targets of social control. As agents, they may assist in the identification and control of epileptic drivers, may provide information that enables fair and appropriate job placements for epileptic persons, and give testimony that helps the legal system resolve issues relating to the liability of epileptic persons for harm attributed to seizures or interictal behavioral disturbances. As targets, they may be charged with negligent failure to diagnose, treat, or inform about epilepsy or its associated problems, with failure to exercise due care in protecting persons harmed by their patients, or with failure to preserve confidentiality of medical information. Although legislation and judicial decisions have defined some of the physician’s legal duties with reasonable clarity, areas of uncertainty remain, particularly regarding the issue of violating medical confidentiality for the benefit of persons other than the patient

The Persistent Vegetative State: A View across the Legal Divide

Praise for Fred Plum can take many forms: for pedagogical dynamism, for depth and breadth of contributions to neurology and neuroscience, for sure-handed guidance of a department that has infused neurology with today’s and tomorrow’s leaders, and for a truly uncanny ability to fan a drive to excel in those he has touched. Mindful of his admonition to be substantive in what one says and does, my praise will embody a few reflections on the enduring legal and social impact of the “point of view” he and Bryan Jennett authored for the journal Lancet in 1972