Why is a compulsory psychiatric evaluation to buy a gun legal, moral, effective or even advisable. And don't dredge some vague references to "civilized society" either. (You got that explanation yet?) Produce proof. Here, I've done some research for you. Run with it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probable_causeThe best-known definition of probable cause is "a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime".<2> Another common definition is "a reasonable amount of suspicion, supported by circumstances sufficiently strong to justify a prudent and cautious person's belief that certain facts are probably true".<3> Notable in this definition is a lack of requirement for public position or public authority of the individual making the recognition, allowing for use of the term by citizens and/or the general public.
http://www.guideline.gov/content.aspx?id=9317Risk Assesment
An additional component of the formulation involves an assessment of the patient's risk of harm to self or others. This may include consideration of suicide or homicide risk as well as other forms of self-injury (e.g., cutting behaviors, accidents), aggressive behaviors, neglect of self-care, or neglect of the care of dependents. The risk assessment is intended to identify specific factors that may increase or decrease a patient's degree of risk, thereby suggesting specific interventions that may modify particular risk factors or address the safety of the patient or others. Specific risk factors may include demographic parameters (e.g., age, gender), past behavior (e.g., suicide attempts, self-injury, aggression), psychiatric diagnoses, psychiatric symptoms (e.g., anxiety, hopelessness), co-occurring general medical conditions, sociocultural factors, psychosocial stressors, or individual strengths and vulnerabilities. For patients with suicidal behaviors, this risk assessment process is described in detail in APA's Practice Guideline for the Assessment and Treatment of Patients With Suicidal Behaviors.
Although standardized rating scales of suicidal or aggressive behaviors are often used in research and may suggest helpful lines of clinical inquiry, their utility in clinical risk assessment is limited by their low predictive value.Decisions Regarding Treatment-Related Legal and Administrative Issues
Although the consideration of forensic evaluations is outside the scope of this practice guideline, there are times when the general psychiatric evaluation may need to address legal or administrative concerns (see "Special Considerations" in the original guideline document). Examples include deciding between voluntary and involuntary admission, determining whether legally mandated treatment should be pursued in objecting patients, determining whether there is a duty to protect (e.g., by modifying the patient's treatment, increasing outpatient visit frequency, initiating hospitalization, warning the victim) if the patient is deemed a potential risk to others, and deciding on the level of observation needed to address the patient's safety. In situations such as these, the psychiatrist's decision making will depend on the risk assessment (see "Risk Assessment" above) as well as other relevant aspects of the history, examination, symptoms, diagnosis, and clinical formulation.
Assessment of the patient's decision-making capacity may also be needed as part of the informed consent process. When a patient's capacity to consent to treatment is uncertain, questioning to determine mental status should be extended to include items that test the patient's decision-making capacity. As with other aspects of the evaluation, it is important to document the rationales for making a particular treatment decision, including a discussion of supporting evidence from the evaluation findings.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_ConstitutionNo person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself,
nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<1>
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
