Question

Case:

In August 2012, K.I., a patient diagnosed with schizophrenia, was reportedly experiencing auditory hallucinations that were commanding him to kill himself. He was emergently admitted to Walden Behavioral Care, a psychiatric treatment facility in Massachusetts. K.I. was subsequently committed to the facility for a three-day evaluation period, during which he was examined and treated by psychiatrist David Brendel, who filed a petition for K.I.'s continued commitment pursuant to Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 123, § 7,8 (2012), which states that a superintendent of a facility may petition for commitment and retention of any patient at said facility if the superintendent has determined that failure to hospitalize would create a likelihood of serious harm as a result of mental illness.

K.I. stated that he was never informed that his communications with his treating psychiatrist may be admissible in legal proceedings. He filed a motion to exclude Dr. Brendel's testimony, maintaining that his statements were protected by clinician–patient privilege. Two exceptions to this privilege outlined in the statute were raised in this case. The first exception, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B(a)(2012), states that privilege shall not apply if a clinician, in the course of his diagnosis or treatment of the patient, determines that the patient is in need of hospitalization for mental illness or that there is a threat of an imminent, dangerous act of the patient against himself or another person. The second exception, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 233, § 20B(b)(2012), states that privilege shall not apply if a judge finds that a patient, after having been informed that the communications would not be privileged, has made statements to the clinician during the course of a court-ordered examination that were relevant to the patient's mental illness.

K.I. asserted that the only exception that may be applicable to his case was the latter exception regarding court-ordered examinations. He argued that, because he had not been warned about the nonconfidential nature of his conversations with Dr. Brendel, the doctor's testimony should be excluded. The judge of the district court denied the motions, determining that the privilege was overcome by the first exception regarding imminent harm.

During the commitment hearing, Dr. Brendel testified that K.I. had made statements that he was hearing voices telling him to kill himself with an overdose of oxycodone. K.I. also indicated that he had access to oxycodone and that he intended to kill himself in this manner after discharge from the hospital. Dr. Brendel therefore testified that K.I. posed an imminent and serious risk of harming himself because of his mental illness if discharged from the hospital. The district court judge ordered K.I. to be committed to Walden Behavioral Care for six months. After two appeals, the original judgment by the district court was upheld.

Questions:

1. What forensic laws/rules are involved in this case?
2. What ethical principles are involved in this case? Are there any ethical principles violated and is it justified?

Answer 1

Forensic laws of Rules: This is the approch of a few scholars. While the Cannotation of the land of Proof' has been considered by the courts they have not endeavored a through definition - After endeavors to Characterize lave of Confirmation lets Charalenize scientific proof and the mention in which it tends to be connected with lane of pooof. those principles which specifically (o) by . implication - Control What proof might be gotten - - Controll the way in which prove is introduced and gotten controll how prove is to be taken are of and Considered once it is gotten and what ends assuming any are to be drawn from specific. classes of confirmation Indicate the level of fulfillment that the council of threeth must achieve an deciding if a reality in issue is buit up and the result in such a level of full fillment Isn't come to on these are the forensic land and Rules ore Cam Seapolved. : Scanned with

Ethical principles: Scintfic confirmation is additionally used to interface voilations that are belived to be identified with each other. DNA Conformation Can Connect one guilly party to a leve cliftinct voi Glions @) wrong choing seenes linking violations help land implementation : Specialists to limit the scope of convencible. Suspect and to buit up examples of tor wrong doings which are valuable an distinguishing and arranging respects. Measierable reachers like wire deal with growing new methods and techniques for the gathering and investigation of Confirmation - In this way new Ponnovation may be Otilized measurable examination is normally completed by specialists working reparately @) in groups propelled methods. regularly required labs where the Investigative Conca lon's can be deliberately Controlled and observed. - Poinale reaserch centers and government Organi Zalions bloster little and extensive legal Scandlebsith CamScanner

- Criminologial proof is additionally used to .. Interface voi Glions that are belived to be Identified with each other. For instance, DNA Proof can be connect one guilty party to a ten Une Que wrong doings of senses connecting violations Gures Lane implementation Specialists to limit the scope of Convincible. Sespects and to build up examples of for wrong doings which are helpfull in recognizing 1. and arranging respects. Leagal rear researches more over chip gone at growing new me hods and methodology for the accumulation and investigation of confirmation Conveeps us to the princêple Coverre of over theme. the divers kinds of techniques that can be Utilized in legal science and their adequancy - in the landful framework. - In this manner for better understanding we take in to per see an Ordinary Connected techniques for meascerable Confsimalion Scanned with CamScanner