"A Harvard professor says a CNN Headline News host's relentless questioning of a Florida mother three years ago contributed to her suicide.
That's according to a filing in a wrongful death case brought by the family of Melinda Duckett. Duckett's 2-year-old son was reported missing in 2006, and CNN host Nancy Grace launched aggressive nightly coverage of the case.
The family claims that Grace's questioning and CNN's coverage decisions inflicted severe emotional distress on the young mother. Grace interviewed Duckett after speculation had begun about the mother's alleged involvement in the toddler's disappearance.
Acne is associated with an elevated risk of suicide. In looking at the collection of people committing suicide while on Accutane, it is smaller than expected from a pool of 5 million people prescribed the drug. Accutane may have a protective effect in preventing suicide by people with acne. Obviously, it is ordinary common sense. If a drug causes agitation and markedly worsened moods, stop taking it, and ask the doctor for another.
The FDA warning about suicide thoughts in young people taking anti-depressants was a false, irresponsible warning. It killed hundreds of young people by suicide by its intimidation of family doctors and pediatricians prescribing anti-depressants to this population. A plaintiff verdict in this case would have a similar effect as the warning. It would deter non-psychiatrists, and drive colleges out of the mental health clinic business. Both would be catastrophic to the mental and public health of the nation.
The suit should be dismissed on first pleading. It should be considered frivolous, and to have an improper motives, scapegoating and vengeance.
"The father of a Harvard College sophomore who killed himself in 2007 sued the school’s president and fellows for wrongful death, alleging the institution’s health service prescribed drugs known to increase suicide risk.
John B. Edwards II of Wellesley, Massachusetts, sued on behalf of the estate of his son, known as Johnny, in state court in Middlesex County on Dec. 2. A doctor and nurse employed by Harvard simultaneously prescribed skin, antidepressant and attention-deficit disorder drugs linked to suicide and other side effects, according to the complaint.
“Three of these drugs have risks associated with heightened suicidality,” the father’s lawyer alleged in the complaint. “All four drugs have significant side effects.”
Harvard College in Cambridge, Massachusetts is the undergraduate school of Harvard University, whose $26-billion endowment is the world’s largest academic fund.
“The care he received at Harvard University Health Services was thorough and appropriate and he was monitored closely by its physicians and allied health specialists,” Harvard said yesterday in an e-mailed statement. “Similar complaints previously have been filed with the Board of Registration in Medicine, the Board of Registration in Nursing and the Board of Registration in Pharmacy, and in all three instances the complaints were dismissed upon review.”
No utterance below has any scientific validation. If he ever testifies to such for a plaintiff, I would appreciate learning about it, so that I may legally act upon him. I request that future publications quoting Resnick allow a rebuttal section to balance his garbage utterances. From Phillip J. Resnick, MD, professor of psychiatry and director of forensic psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland,
"Careful documentation of suicide risk factors—including prior attempts and feelings of hopelessness—is the most important means of avoiding a malpractice suit, according to Dr Resnick. It’s not enough to state simply that a patient denies having suicidal ideas. Also take into account input from family and objective signs of patient behavior before discharging a patient from the hospital...
Inpatient Suicide Liability risk rises when a psychiatric inpatient commits suicide. According to Dr Resnick, there are 2 major considerations in the eyes of the law when determining whether a psychiatrist has failed to protect a patient: foreseeability and precautions taken after the suicide risk is identified, such as frequent monitoring. Suicide is difficult to predict, and the law recognizes this. “However, once the psychiatrist is aware that a patient is at risk for suicide, he or she is expected to take certain reasonable precautions,” Resnick said.
Before discharging an inpatient, be sure to document objective signs of improvement, such as better appetite, better sleeping, group therapy attendance, and brighter affect. This information should be included in the clinical notes. “When I review a malpractice case involving a patient who killed himself or herself shortly after discharge, I look to see whether the doctor recorded any objective evidence of improvement,” said Resnick...
Resnick also strongly recommends involving the patient’s family. “This is crucial,” he notes, “because a patient who is saying his final goodbye before killing himself has a 60% chance of saying goodbye to his spouse but only an 18% chance of notifying his therapist.3” If a patient or a family member reports that the patient has a suicide plan, increased scrutiny is critical: 3 of 4 of these patients go on to attempt suicide.4 Hospitalization or increased treatment should be considered."
Minn. man under investigation in 2 deaths but charges uncertain
Robb Long / AP
Minnesota investigators say William Melchert-Dinkel visited Internet suicide chat rooms and offered "expert knowledge" on how to commit suicide. He is under investigation in two cases. No charges have been filed, and legal experts say prosecution would be difficult because Melchert-Dinkel didn't physically help kill the people.
MINNEAPOLIS - A nurse who authorities say got his kicks by visiting Internet suicide chat rooms and encouraging depressed people to kill themselves is under investigation in at least two deaths and could face criminal charges.
Investigators said William Melchert-Dinkel, 47, feigned compassion for those he chatted with, while offering step-by-step instructions on how to take their lives.
"Most important is the placement of the noose on the neck ... Knot behind the left ear and rope across the carotid is very important for instant unconsciousness and death," he allegedly wrote in one Web chat.
*****
The families are outraged and want prosecution of this Free Speech Clause protected activity. They are really seeking scapegoats for their own contributions, genetic and environmental, to the suicide of their loved one.
"Campaigners for assisted suicide have emphasised that the new guidance will not change the law but make the current position clearer.
"We are hoping that this will be a positive step and will give Debbie clarity about the kind of factors and situations which will encourage the DPP to prosecute and which will not," said a spokesperson from Dignity in Dying, which supported Purdy's case.
"We are hoping that for people in the situation of Debbie and [her husband] Omar it will be a helpful piece of prosecuting guidance. We are hopeful that it will be a positive step forward."
Father wanted the apology to absolve his son of the responsibility for the suicide. Nothing will change the determination to die his son showed from childhood. If I were the gun owner, I would have countersued for the pain from having someone steal my gun and blast himself in my home. The suicider had no permission to take the gun. This verdict rewards a crime, theft.
"Following his son Brian’s suicide, Joseph Montes just wanted the boy’s stepfather to publish an apology as a warning to other people who keep guns in the house where they rear children.
While his request was clearly personal, the Baltimore scientist also viewed it as a public service that would “hit home.”
“That’s it,” Montes said last week, his face shaking. “That’s it.”
But Frank Eisler wouldn’t do it. He didn’t think the 16-year-old’s death — from a 9mm shot to the head in the early morning of April 11, 2005 — was his fault.
So Montes sued. And after a year and a half of litigation, including a contentious three-day jury trial that ended Friday in Baltimore City Circuit Court, he won: $50,000 and a public assignment of blame to the man he believes could have done more to save his troubled son. "
To end lawsuits for suicide because they contradict the modern, multi-factorial understanding of the causes of suicide, and indirectly hurt many unseen patients. The sole claim for suicide with merit involves assisting the suicide in violation of law.
This site is for defendants and defense lawyers in suicide malpractice suits, to improve defense expert testimony, perhaps to reduce losses in adverse settlements or verdicts.
These settlements and judgments devastate the practice of psychiatry. They cause the needless incarceration of thousands of suicidal patients without proof of benefit. The resulting defensive treatments consume a large fraction of the budget for wasteful treatment and starve proven preventive measures. These lawsuits are also morally wrong. They extort money from the party least influential in the many factors causing the suicide of the victim, the clinician trying to help. If they continue, the most suicidal and neediest patients will be avoided.
Explaining modern, multi-factorial understanding of the causes of suicide in plain language may result in more common sense judgments from jurors. The defendant may also prosecute, with licensing boards and in court, attorneys promulgating "junk science." The frivolous, malpractice lawsuit, because of profound, indirect impact on medical costs and life threatening errors, is another serious ethical lapse.
In systems closed to attorneys (e.g. the military), the rate of suicide may be cut by a large fraction reliably, quickly, at almost no additional expense.
A psychiatrist runs this site. It gives moral support to the civil defendant's determination to defend clinical care from vicious lawyer predators and their misleading expert collaborators.
