After pilot abandoned the city montana easy to make pulled crux of the article was that experts must not confuse the required of care with optional, higher standard. The point was made that guidelines, such as the American Psychiatric Association's 2003 guidelines for the management of suicidal patients, do not always become standards, and sometimes refer to better-than-adequate care. discussing suicide risk assessment, the authors noted that every case and patient is different, that clinicians cannot reasonably predict suicide itself that clinical judgement is important, that there is no official standard risk assessment format or algorhythm, and that rote forms and checklists alone are often inadequate for the task. At least one item the article was misleading its incompleteness, and needs correcting for those who search it out and rely upon it. The authors' statement that The standard of care for a suicidal patient is to do a suicide risk assessment leaves out at least four very important points clinical situations which, for example, patients are unfamiliar to the clinician, depressed, psychotic, intoxicated, drug withdrawal, traumatized, anxious, confused, and or demented, create a potential for suicide risk that should be recognized by the clinician, and for which appropriate risk assessment and risk management are required by the standard of care.. Repeating risk assessment during a patient's is frequently required by the standard, such as when changes inpatient monitoring or frequency of outpatient visits are contemplated, when the patient's clinical condition changes when the patient's overall situation shifts significantly before transfer to a different level of care, and before hospital discharge. Mandatory Life Sentences for Juveniles Ruled Unconsitutional The U.S. Supreme Court ruled 2012, the case of that mandatory life imprisonment is unconstitutional sentencing procedure for juvenile offenders, regardless of their crimes. It violates the cruel and unusual punishment clause of the 8th Amendment. Evan of Alabama and Kuntrell of Arkansas had been convicted of murder two separate state cases. The USSC, a majority but not unanimous opinion, held that life prison can be a sentencing option, but tt cannot be mandated Various facts and considerations about the defendant and his or her background, separate from the facts of the crime itself, must be weighed by the trier before sentencing. The American Psychiatric Association has participated brief that explained the immature and developing nature of juveniles' brains, as well as their greater-than-adult likelihood of rehabilitation. Duty to Third Parties: Malpractice Liability for Damage to Family Members Information forwarded from attorney Skip Simpson refers to the Utah Supreme Court's recent ruling that physicians have a duty to their patients' family members matters involving negligent prescribing and patient violence. The finding applies to a case brought on behalf of the children of a confessed murderer for whom two steroids, a central nervous system stimulant, two antidepressant medications, and anxiolytic had been prescribed. The case alleges that negligent prescribing of those medications was a cause of David Ragsdale's 2008, murder of his wife. The court held, part, that care providers perform a societal function of undoubted social utility, but they are not entitled to elevated status tort law that would categorically immunize them from liability when their negligent prescriptions cause physical injury to nonpatients. Without regard to the merits of the case this ruling could have substantial effect on malpractice lawsuits against physicians physician extenders and mental health professionals such as counselors and psychotherapists. The case is Utah Supreme Court Case No. 20110207-SC. Several medical associations testified or filed briefs to the effect that physicians and other providers should not be held responsible for damage to third parties circumstances such as this case. Physicians have often been found liable to third parties other kinds of cases, when their negligence involved foreseeable events. One important issue is the foreseeability of damage, which the Utah Supreme Court appears to have ruled is a matter for a trial court fact finder to decide. A -called duty to protect third parties from reasonably foreseeable patient violence was a common litigation topic