Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T05:50:10.060Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Currents in Contemporary Ethics: Shocking Treatment: The Use of Tasers in Psychiatric Care

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Cheryl Erwin  and
Robert Philibert
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The use of restraints on psychiatric patients has long been criticized, and the need for self-restraint of professionals in response to new technologies has been documented from the nineteenth century. Since the middle ages, when leprosy disappeared from civilized society, individuals with a “deranged mind” came to occupy the public space of outcast once reserved for the leper. This diminished social status conflicts with the ethical precept of respect for all patients and the need for humane treatment within the clinical care setting. Psychiatric patients may be presented as a physically dangerous presence in clinical care facilities. New technologies may seem to offer a solution to the problem of balancing the safety of staff with the ethical requirement to treat patients with respect and attention to their medical needs. The Taser, promoted as a safe method of law enforcement, has received notoriety in at least one case involving restraint of psychiatric patients.

Type
JLME Column
Information
Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , Spring 2006 , pp. 116 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Belkin, G. S., “Self-Restraint, Self-Examination: A Historical Perspective on Restraints and Ethics in Psychiatry,” Psychiatric Services 53, no. 6 (2002): 663–664.Google Scholar
Foucault, M., Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (New York: Random House, 1965, 1988).Google Scholar
Associated Press, “Tasers May Jolt Harried Hospital; Health: King/Drew Risks $200 Million for Using Stun Gun,” Long Beach Press-Telegram (CA), December 20, 2004, at A11.Google Scholar
Associated Press, “LA Hospital Bans Police Stun Gun Use on Patients,” AP Alert – California, June 24, 2004, at 12:04:13.Google Scholar
Associated Press, supra note 3.Google Scholar
Chong, J., “County May Hand Control of King/Drew to Private Firm,” available at <http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me-kingdrew14oct14,0,4746150.story?coll=ktla-news-1> (last visited January 12, 2006).+(last+visited+January+12,+2006).>Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. § 482.13(f)(1) (West 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
42 C.F.R. § 482.13(f)(3)(ii)(C) (West 2005). In the case of National Association of Psychiatric Health Systems v. Shalala, 120 F.Supp.2d 33, D.D.C. (Sept. 14, 2000) the Court for the D.C. Circuit held it was within the discretion of the DHHS to require physician review within one hour even if this puts a great burden on small facilities. In reaching its decision the court emphasized the need to prevent improper restraints as a matter of policy.Google Scholar
Woods, O., Security Issues in Psychiatric Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services memo DDES-BQA-05-011. September 12, 2005.Google Scholar
CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix A Rev 1, 05-21-04, at A-0075 available at <http://cms.hhs.gov/manuals/Downloads/som107ap_a_hospitals.pdf> (last visited January 12, 2006).+(last+visited+January+12,+2006).>Google Scholar
Associated Press, “Federal Medical Agency Warns that Troubled South LA Hospital May Lose Funding,” AP Alert – California, February 3, 2005, at 14:58:45.Google Scholar
Office of the Inspector General, Work Plan FY 2006, at 4, available at <www.oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/work-plan/2006/WorkPlanFY2006.pdf> (last visited January 12, 2006).+(last+visited+January+12,+2006).>Google Scholar
See 42 C.F.R. § 482.13 (West 2005) “A hospital must protect and promote each patient's rights.”Google Scholar
For example: Tex. Health & Safety Code § 576.021, General Rights Relating to Treatment (West 2005); New Jersey Stat. Ann. § 30:4–24.2, Rights of Patients (West 2005); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 333.20201, Patient or resident rights and responsibilities, policy (West 2005); West's Ann. Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 5325.1 Same rights and responsibilities guaranteed others; discrimination by programs or activities receiving public funds (West 2005).Google Scholar
42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq. (West 2005).Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. § 482.62 (West 2005).Google Scholar
Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 479, 81 S.Ct. 247 (U.S. 1960).Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. 482.13(f) (West 2005).Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. 482.13(f) (West 2005).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
See Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 321, 102 S.Ct. 2452, 2461 (U.S. 1982), holding a profoundly retarded individual retains liberty interests in safety and freedom from restraint. Decisions made by the physician are necessary and presumed to be made in good faith.Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. 482.62(a) (West 2005).Google Scholar
Smith, R., “TASER Takes the Stage,” Motley Fool, October 6, 2005 at <http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05100608.htm> (last visited January 3, 2006).+(last+visited+January+3,+2006).>Google Scholar
Cusac, A., “The Trouble with Tasers,” The Progressive 69, no. 4 (2005).Google Scholar
Anglen, R., “Jury Decides Taser not at Fault in Injury,” The Arizona Republic, December 23, 2005 available at <http://www.azcentral.com/arizona-republic/news/articles/1223taser23.html> (last visited January 17, 2006).+(last+visited+January+17,+2006).>Google Scholar
Anglen, R., “Taser Shocks Ruled Cause of Death,” Arizona Republic, July 30, 2005, at A1.Google Scholar
Ibid.Google Scholar
Black, H., Black's Law Dictionary, sixth ed., (St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Co., 1891, 1990): at 1593. “A ‘weapon’ is “anything used, or designed to be used, in destroying, defeating, threatening or injuring a person.”Google Scholar
Rosner, D. and Markowitz, G., Industry Challenges to the Principle of Prevention in Public Health: The Precautionary Principle in Historical Perspective, 117 PUB. HEALTH REP. 501, 502–05 (2002).Google Scholar
Taser International, Inc., at <www.taser.com> (last visited January 3, 2006).+(last+visited+January+3,+2006).>Google Scholar
42 C.F.R. § 482.13(f)(2) (West 2005).Google Scholar
CMS State Operations Manual, Appendix A. Rev. 1, 05-21-04, at A-0075 available at <http://cms.hhs.gov/manuals/Downloads/som107ap_a_hospitals.pdf> (last visited January 12, 2006).+(last+visited+January+12,+2006).>Google Scholar
Manieri, R., United States Attorney's Office News Release, US Attorney's Office Reaches Agreement with Hospital to Resolve Failure of Care Allegations Stemming from Improper Use of Patient Restraints (July 25, 2005), available at <http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/jul/CMMC.html> (last visited January 3, 2006). (last visited January 3, 2006).' href=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Manieri,+R.,+United+States+Attorney's+Office+News+Release,+US+Attorney's+Office+Reaches+Agreement+with+Hospital+to+Resolve+Failure+of+Care+Allegations+Stemming+from+Improper+Use+of+Patient+Restraints+(July+25,+2005),+available+at++(last+visited+January+3,+2006).>Google Scholar
31 Act of March 2, 1863, ch. 67, 12 Stat. 696.Google Scholar
31 U.S.C. §§ 3729–3733 (West 2005).Google Scholar
See Sheehan, J., Address: “Biotech Fraud: Reality or Fantasy?” Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy 2, no. 11 (2002).Google Scholar
See Burke, Walsh A. M., “Qui Tam: Blowing the Whistle for Uncle Sam,” Nova Law Review 21 (1997): 869–944, at 870.Google Scholar
28 C.F.R. § 85.3(a)(9).Google Scholar
United States v. NHC Healthcare Corp., 115 F.Supp. 2d 1149 (W.D. Mo. 2001).Google Scholar
See Krause, J. H., “Promises to Keep: Health Care Providers and the Civil False Claims Act,” Cardozo Law Review 23 (2002): 1363–1437, at 1384.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, A., “The Origins of Preventive Confinement in Anglo-American Law Part I: The English Experience,” University of Cincinnati Law Review 43 (1974): 1–59.Google Scholar