Treating criminal offenders in correctional contexts: identifying interests and distributing responsibilities.
In Panetti v. Quarterman, three professional associations advocated commutation of capital sentences for offenders who are incompetent to face execution. Some judicial opinions deny that convicted offenders have any protected interest in avoiding a legally imposed sentence, and other opinions have found that the Eighth Amendment requires treatment for prisoners with serious mental health needs. This article examines some circumstances in which health care providers in the context of criminal punishment encounter apparent conflicts among the treatment interests of the individuals, the comprehensive interests of these individuals, legally protected interests, and the public interest. This analysis pursues clarification of these interests and of potential tensions among legal and professional obligations of health care providers. This article does not provide comprehensive resolution of this tension. Rather, it is intended to promote rigorous ongoing inquiry by clarifying the relevant interests at stake and the responsibilities of various participants in the complex interaction of health care and corrections.
Schopp
Robert F
RF
Law/Psychology Program, University of Nebraska-Lincoln, Lincoln, NE 68583-0902, USA. rschopp1@unl.edu
D002203:Capital Punishment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry; D006801:Humans; D007298:Insanity Defense; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D028681:Moral Obligations; D010819:Physician's Role; D011329:Prisoners / Q000523:psychology*; D011330:Prisons; D035521:Supreme Court Decisions; D016312:Treatment Refusal; D014481:United States; D028761:Withholding Treatment / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence