Section 13: Case Laws Flashcards
A.C. v Manitoba (Director of Child and Family Services
p. 855
Memory trick: A.C looks like Alice; alice is in wonderland is little –> MINORS
MATURE MINOR
The Story: 14 years old female Jehovah’s witness was admitted to hospital with Crohn’s disease (needed blood transfusion, but this was against her religion); Child and Family services wanted to force transfusions on her because she was below age 16
Result: The case developed criteria for assessing mature minors (whether children under the age of 16 are able to make decision for themselves)
Factors to consider for mature minor status:
- nature of treatment
- intellectual ability
- stability of views
- vulnerabilities
FOR PSYCHOLOGISTS: helps us to assess whether our client can be considered a mature minor
Ahmed v Stefaniu
p.856
Memory trick: Ahmed (like Ackhmed the Terrorist) -> Stefany had to protect the public from terrorist
DUTY OF CARE - what client factors should we consider when trying to meet the standard of care??
The story: Stefaniu (psychiatrist) changed a very ill patient’s status from involuntary to voluntary; this permitted him to leave the hospital –> then in killed people. Stefaniu was deemed negligent because by changing the status, she did not meet the standards of patient care
Result: Mental health professions will be less likely/willing to release mental health dangerous patients
* psychologists have to balance patient rights against protecting the public; this case makes them lean towards protecting the public
J.S.C v Wren
p. 858
Memory trick: wren = small bird –> minor
MATURE MINOR
The story: a teens parents tried to stop her from having an abortion; court said teen at right to make up her own mind
Result: Courts and parents need to give teens change to make up their own mind regarding medical treatment if teen has:
- sufficient understanding of RISK/BENEFIT
Which two case laws set precedent regarding mature minors?
p. 855/p. 858
(Alice and the Wren)
A.C. v Manitoba
J.S.C v Wren
Kines Estate v Lynchuk Estate
p. 860
Memory trick: lynCHUCK - Chuck away the case
DUTY OF CARE CANNOT BE INDEFINITELY EXTENDED
The story: Lynchuk (schizophrenia) killed Kines. Mental health team treating Lynchuk was sued for negligence (why didn’t they institutionalize Lynchuk?) –> Claim dismissed
Result: Court said physicians cannot be indefinitely held responsible for a patient (all physicians had limited contact with Lynchuk)
McInerney v Macdonald
Memory trick: Ordering at MacDonalds; Ordering your health records
ACCESSING FILES
Story: Patient wanted access to her medical files and doctor would only give her limited access; patient request granted by court
Result: Clients have a right to access their health care information. Health care providers MUST given access unless there is a significant likelihood this will cause patient harm
R v Hajar
p. 861
Memory Trick: Hajar rhymes with body snatcher (like he was trying to snatch her body because of defacto consent)
DE FACTO CONSENT
Story: Hajar (20) lured girl (14) into a sexual encounter with him; she had sent him nude photos over the internet prior to encounter. Hajar said consent was implied –> found guilty of luring child into sexual
encounter
Result: De facto consent is rejected when child participates in sexual act; expcetion when partner is close in age (another child; under 16)
R v Mills
p.862
Memory trick: Mills rhymed with Bills (Bill C-46)
RAPE SHIELD LAW; Bill C-46 (protects victims of rape)
Story: Mills raped 13 year old; in court case, he tried to get victim’s therapy case file. Judge denied request
Results: Rape shield law - if a client’s file is subpoenaed, psychologists can appeal request based on eight factors in listed in Bill C-46 to protect client privacy
R. v Mohan
p. 864
Memory trick: Mohan is like Mohandas Ghani - an expert
EXPERT WITNESS
Story: A pediatrician was being tried for sexual assault; his lawyer brought a psychiatrist to the stand (as an expert witness) to explain the good characteristics the doctor had (these were not relevant to the case). Made court define expert witness better
Results: 4 criteria were created to make an expert witness testimony admissible in court:
1) relevance
2) Necessity of the testimony
3) absence of an exclusionary rules ( I have no idea what this means)
4) expert is actually qualified
**If you are asked to be an expert witness, make sure you meet these criterea
S.D.K. v Alberta
Memory trick: S. D. K - She Don’t Know (mother never got the info she requested)
Story: Mother requested child welfare reports after her children were apprehended from father and his wife so that SHE could seek custody. Court denied request (this would not be fair to father)
Results:
1) Based on Child Welfare Act: parents of children who are subject tot eh act are entitled to receive all info in possession of Child Welfare UNLESS info may harm child’s health/third party
2) Psychologists are required to disclose all information to Child Welfare UNLESS disclosure may harm child’s health/third party
Smith v Jones
Memory trick: Jones rhymes with gravestones –> duty to disclose so no one else dies
DUTY TO PROTECT
Story: Accused admitted to psychiatrist that he committed a crime and had intent to commit more similar crimes (assault on prostitutes). Psychiatrist was concerned about public safety; judge ruled that psychiatrist had duty to disclose info (break confidentiality) to protect public safety.
Results: To break confidentiality (prioritize duty to protect), 3 factors must be present:
1) Identifiable group
2) Risk of serious bodily harm/death
3) Imminent danger
SIMILAR TO TARASOFF RULING IN USA
Tarasoff v Regents of California
Memory Trick: Taras-OFF (someone wanted to OFF her)
DUTY TO WARN (Canadian version: Wenden and Trikha)
Story: Client confided intent to kill ex-girlfriend, Tarasoff. Psychologists told campus police, but no further action was taken. Courts ruled MH professionals have duty to warm and duty to protect people who are being threatened by a patient.
Results: To break confidentiality (prioritize duty to protect), 3 factors must be present:
1) Identifiable group
2) Risk of serious bodily harm/death
3) Imminent danger
ALSO - assess:
- client’s history of violence?
- client’s relationship to threatened person?
- Client opportunity to act?
- was there a trigger for threat? will triggers continue?
- client’s response to treatment?
Wenden and Trikha
Memory Trick: (Trikha - he TRICKED the hospital and escaped)
DUTY TO PROTECT ( US version: Tarasoff v Regents)
Story: Trikha escaped from hospital and caused a car accident in which Wenden was injured. Wenden sued hospital; court rules that psychiatrist was not negligent because there was not identifiable victim
Results: Duty to protect only stands when patient identifies target victim;
Young v Bella
Memory Trick: Bell from Beauty and the Beast is a children’s story
DUTY OF CARE/CONFIDENTIALITY
Story: Professor read story that child had written about child abuse; professor submitted report to authorities without making sure story was true. Harm occurred to child because of these actions.
Results: Mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse/neglect BUT must have reasonable cause to suspect abuse NOT just speculation
