Law, science, and psychiatric malpractice: a response to Klerman's indictment of psychoanalytic psychiatry.
The Osheroff litigation, which is central to Klerman's paper, ended in an out-of-court settlement. The author states that there is no legal precedent for the so-called right to effective treatment and that the case history was a much more complicated clinical scenario than Klerman reports. He concludes that there is neither in the law nor in the clinical facts a sound or certain basis for Klerman's conclusions or for the sweeping policy reforms and standardized clinical procedures he urges. Although they are directed against traditional psychoanalytic psychiatrists, Klerman's proposals could have serious consequences for the innovation, diversity, and independent thought essential to scientific progress in psychiatry.
Stone
A A
AA
Faculty of Law, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138.
D000328:Adult; D014150:Antipsychotic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D002986:Clinical Trials as Topic; D003866:Depressive Disorder / Q000175:diagnosis / Q000628:therapy*; D005260:Female; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008396:Maryland; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011570:Psychiatry / Q000592:standards; D011575:Psychoanalytic Therapy / Q000592:standards*; D011613:Psychotherapy / Q000592:standards; D009626:Terminology as Topic; D014481:United States
D014150:Antipsychotic Agents