JAAPL
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 36:3:306-309 (2008)
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Manguno-Mire, G.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kelly, D. C.
Right arrow Articles by Manguno-Mire, G.
SPECIAL ARTICLE

Commentary: Helling v. Carey, Caveat Medicus

D. Clay Kelly, MD and Gina Manguno-Mire, PhD

Drs. Kelly and Manguno-Mire are Assistant Professors of Psychiatry, Division of Forensic Psychiatry, Department of Psychiatry and Neurology, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans, LA. Address correspondence to: Gina Manguno-Mire, PhD, Tulane University School of Medicine, Dept. of Psych/Neuro, 1440 Canal Street TB-53, New Orleans, LA 70112. E-mail: gmire{at}tulane.edu

Forensic experts should be aware of the increasing importance of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in various legal settings. CPGs are a type of learned treatise and are accepted into court proceedings under hearsay exception provisions. The courts now use CPGs as shorthand for the standard of care in making malpractice determinations. However, medical guidelines can function as a sword or a shield in the courtroom arena. The Helling v. Carey medical malpractice case serves as a frightful reminder of the potential consequences of allowing courts to craft their own standards of medical care.






HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2008 by the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law.