28 Matching Annotations
  1. Sep 2020
    1. numerous non-human species suffer from psychiatric symptoms. Birds obsess; horses on occasion get pathologically compulsive; dolphins and whales—especially those in captivity—self-mutilate. And that thing when your dog woefully watches you pull out of the driveway from the window—that might be DSM-certified separation anxiety. "Every animal with a mind has the capacity to lose hold of it from time to time" wrote science historian and author Dr. Laurel Braitman in "Animal Madness

      Animals can have psychiatric issues as well.

      Examples include:

      • Dolphins that self-mutilate when in captivity
      • Horses that can get pathologically compulsive
      • Brides that obsess
    2. schizophrenia. Though psychotic animals may exist, psychosis has never been observed outside of our own species; whereas depression, OCD, and anxiety traits have been reported in many non-human species

      Humans are the only ones that develop schizophrenia

  2. Aug 2020
    1. what might be learned from the case. The answer, in part, is that prudent psychiatrists and other therapists will want to be thoughtful about how they arrange follow-up care for patients whom they can no longer see.Sometimes a general suggestion that a patient seek follow-up care will be adequate. However, as the patient's condition warrants, clinicians might choose, in ascending order of time commitment, to provide the patient with the name of a particular practitioner or facility, to contact the facility to ascertain that a clinician is willing to see the patient, to help the patient make an appointment, or, with the patient's permission, to make an appointment on the patient's behalf. In some cases, it may be appropriate to ask for the patient's permission to contact his or her family to indicate a need for follow-up and to encourage the family to make sure that follow-up takes place. But of these approaches, no specific one will always be indicated, and the degree of assistance rendered the patient should be calibrated to his or her individual needs.

      What can be learned from this case?

      • Carefully plan follow up plans with patients (general suggestion about follow up can be enough)
      • Ask patient for family information to help them get involved in the follow up process and help increase compliance.

      Consider:

      • Giving the specific name of a provider to follow up with
      • How to contact the facility,
      • See if who you provided/recommended is avaliable to take the patient
      • Help patient make the appointment or make it on their behalf (with permission)
    2. One final questionable aspect of the jury's verdict relates to the legal requirement that before a judgment of malpractice can be reached, any departures from the standard of care must be shown to have been the proximate cause of the resulting harms. The most common test for whether an act or omission constitutes a proximate cause is whether it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the negligent act occurred that would result in the consequent harms. Williamson had no history of violent behavior and had never revealed a violent impulse during treatment. It is impossible to conclude that he was foreseeably dangerous at the time he was seen by Dr. Liptzin.

      The test for proximate cause "is whether it was reasonably foreseeable at the time that the negligent act occurred that would result in the consequent harms"

      In this case, Dr. Liptzin, having seen Williamson having no history of violence or anything else, could not reasonably foresee that Williamson was going to do something illegal.

    3. When a former psychiatric patient killed two people on the streets of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and then sued the psychiatrist who had treated him for failing to prevent the murders, the mental health world dismissed the suit as frivolous. But when a jury agreed with the killer and awarded him $500,000 in damages, bewilderment was the order of the day (1). Can it be true, psychiatrists asked, that murder pays—as long as you can blame your psychiatrist for your deed?

      This is the case where it was initially ruled that the psychiatrist was the proximate cause for the patient, Williamson, to commit murder. Subsequent higher courts overturned this decision.

  3. Jul 2020
  4. Jun 2020
  5. May 2020
  6. Dec 2014
    1. This page could be more reassuring to the many people who have a degree of paranoia which does not interfere with their normal life. In a paranoia scoring scale some items were endorsed by 20-30% of the general population. British Journal of Psychiatry, 2013