Citation

Obegi JH. J. Am. Acad. Psychiatry Law 2017; 45(4): 452-459.

Affiliation

Dr. Obegi is a Senior Psychologist Supervisor, California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR), Vacaville, CA. joseph.obegi@cdcr.ca.gov.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, Publisher American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law)

DOI

unavailable

PMID

29282236

Abstract

The legal standard of care for assessing and responding to suicide risk has historically been ambiguous, creating inconsistency in the testimony of forensic experts and uncertainty about clinical responsibilities among practitioners. In this article, I rigorously apply the legal concept of reasonable care to identify clinical activities that courts could collectively consider as evidence of reasonably careful suicide risk assessments. I derived six clinical activities, which I refer to as probable standards, from a review of legal scholarship in tort law, court cases involving suicidal behavior, and forensic papers on suicide risk assessment. I discuss the basis for each probable standard and offer commentary to aid in their interpretation. My intention is not to define the legal standard of care for suicide risk assessments (only courts can do so) or to create a clinical practice guideline, but to establish legally informed reference points to assist forensic experts in providing objective, consistent, and compelling testimony.

© 2017 American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.

Language: en