Shocking treatment: The use of tasers in psychiatric care

Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics

Volumn 34, Issue 1, 2006, Pages 116-120

  Erwin, Cheryl ^a,b   Philibert, Robert ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF IOWA   (United States)

^b Department of Environmental and Occupational Health   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ELECTRIC SHOCK; ETHICS; EXERCISE; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL DISEASE; METHODOLOGY; PSYCHIATRY; REVIEW; UNITED STATES; VIOLENCE;

DANGEROUS BEHAVIOR; ELECTROSHOCK; HUMANS; MENTAL DISORDERS; PSYCHIATRY; RESTRAINT, PHYSICAL; UNITED STATES;

EID: 33645156382     PISSN: 10731105     EISSN: 1748720X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-720X.2006.00015.x     Document Type: Review

References (40)

1. G. S. Belkin, "Self-Restraint, Self-Examination: A Historical Perspective on Restraints and Ethics in Psychiatry," Psychiatric Services 53, no. 6 (2002): 663-664.
2. M. Foucault, Madness and Civilization: A History of Insanity in the Age of Reason (New York: Random House, 1965, 1988).
3. 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.
4. Associated Press, "LA Hospital Bans Police Stun Gun Use on Patients," AP Alert - California, June 24, 2004, at 12:04:13.
5. Associated Press, supra note 3.
6. J. Chong, "County May Hand Control of King/Drew to Private Firm," available at 〈http://ktla.trb.com/news/local/la-me- kingdrew04oct14,0,4746150. story?coll=kua-news-1〉 (last visited January 12, 2006).
7. 42 C.F.R. § 482.13(f)(1) (West 2005).
8. R.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.
9. O. Woods, Security Issues in Psychiatric Treatment Facilities, Wisconsin Department of Health and Family Services memo DDES-BQA-05-011. September 12, 2005.
10. 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).
11. Associated Press, "Federal Medical Agency Warns that Troubled South LA Hospital May Lose Funding," AP Alert - California, February 3, 2005, at 14:58:45.
12. Office of the Inspector General, Work Plan FY 2006, at 4, available at 〈www.oig.hhs.gov/publications/docs/workplan/2006/WorkPlanFY2006.pdf〉 (last visited January 12, 2006).
13. See 42 C.F.R. § 482.13 (West 2005) "A hospital must protect and promote each patient's rights."
14. 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).
15. 42 U.S.C. § 10801 et seq. (West 2005).
16. 42 C.F.R. §482.62 (West 2005).
17. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U.S. 47.9, 81 S.Ct. 247 (U.S. 1960).
18. 42 C.F.R. 482.13(f) (West 2005).
19. 42 C.F.R. 482.13(f) (West 2005).
20. 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.
21. 42 C.F.R. 482.62(a) (West 2005).
22. R. Smith, "TASER Takes the Stage," Motley Fool, October 6, 2005 at §http://www.fool.com/news/commentary/2005/commentary05100608.htm〉 (last visited January 3, 2006).
23. A. Cusac, "The Trouble with lasers," The Progressive 69, no. 4 (2005).
24. R. Anglen, "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).
25. R. Anglen, "Taser Shocks Ruled Cause of Death," Arizona Republic, July 30, 2005, at A1.
26. R. Anglen, "Taser Shocks Ruled Cause of Death," Arizona Republic, 2005, at A1. Ibid.
27. H. Black, 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."
28. D. Rosner and G. Markowitz, Industry Challenges to the Principle of Prevention in Public Health: The Precautionary Principle in Historical Perspective, 117 PUB. HEALTH REP. 501, 502-05 (2002).
29. Taser International, Inc., at 〈www.taser.com〉 (last visited January 3, 2006).
30. 42 C.F.R. § 482.13(f)(2) (West 2005).
31. 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).
32. R. Manieri, 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.nsdoj.gov/usao/pae/News/Pr/2005/jul/CMMC.html〉 (last visited January 3, 2006).
33. 31 Act of March 2, 1863, ch. 67, 12 Stat. 696.
34. 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733 (West 2005).
35. See J. Sheehan, Address: "Biotech Fraud: Reality or Fantasy?" Houston Journal of Health Law & Policy 2, no. 11 (2002).
36. See A. M. Walsh Burke, "Qui Tam: Blowing the Whistle for Uncle Sam," Nova Law Review 21 (1997): 869-944, at 870.
37. 28 C.F.R. § 85.3(a)(9).
38. United States v. NHC Healthcare Corp., 115 F.Supp. 2d 1149 (W.D. Mo. 2001).
39. See J. II. Krause, "Promises to Keep: Health Care Providers and the Civil False Claims Act," Cardoza Law Review 23 (2002): 1363-1437, at 1384.
40. A. Dershowitz, "The Origins of Preventive Confinement in Anglo-American Law Part I: The English Experience," University of Cincinnati Law Review 43 (1974): 1-59.