Justice for Injured Research Subjects

By Carl Elliott, MD, PhD
The New England Journal of Medicine-Perspective
Originally published July 5, 2012

Critics have long argued that U.S. ethics guidelines protect researchers more than they protect research subjects. The U.S. system of oversight, writes Laura Stark, was developed as a “technique for promoting research and preventing lawsuits.” Consider, for example, the obligations of U.S. research sponsors when a study goes wrong. If a research subject is seriously injured, neither the researcher nor the sponsor has any legal obligation to pay for that subject's medical care. In fact, only 16% of academic medical centers in the United States make it a policy to pay for the care of injured subjects. If a subject is permanently disabled and unable to work, sponsors have no obligation to pay compensation for his or her lost income. If a subject dies, sponsors have no financial obligations to his or her family. Not a single academic medical center in the United States makes it a policy to compensate injured subjects or their families for lost wages or suffering. These policies do not change even if a subject is injured in a study that is scientifically worthless, deceptive, or exploitative.

The entire article is here.

Thanks to Gary Schoener for this information.

Court Upholds Counseling Program's Requirement That Students Accept Gay Clients

By Peter Schmidt
Chronicle of Higher Education
Originally published June 26, 2012

Jennifer Keeton

A federal district court has thrown out a civil-rights lawsuit challenging the Augusta State University school-counseling program's dismissal of a student who said her Christian beliefs preclude her from affirmatively counseling homosexual students.

Judge J. Randal Hall of the U.S. District Court in Augusta, Ga., dismissed the lawsuit last week, rejecting its claims that the graduate counseling program had violated the student's rights under the U.S. Constitution by demanding that she demonstrate a willingness to counsel homosexual students in a nonjudgmental manner.

In upholding the counseling program's decision to kick out the student, Jennifer Keeton, for refusing to complete a remediation plan intended to change her position, Judge Hall said the plan was based on a "a legitimate pedagogical interest in cultivating a professional demeanor" and concern that Ms. Keeton "might prove unreceptive to certain issues and openly judge her clients."

Ms. Keeton was motivated by her religious beliefs, but those she sued were not, Judge Hall concluded in rejecting her claims that professors and administrators at Augusta State, and officials of the University System of Georgia, had violated her rights under the Constitution's First Amendment and Equal Protection Clause.

Rejecting the idea that the case represented "a public contest of values," Judge Hall said the facts it had presented "amount to no more than this: a student enrolled in a professional graduate program was required to complete a course of remediation after being cited for purported professional deficiencies by educators in her chosen field of study; she refused to do so and was dismissed from the program."

The entire story is here.

Thanks to Ken Pope for this story.

Christian Group Backs Away from Ex-Gay Therapy

By Patrick Condon
The Associated Press
Originally published June 26, 2012

Alan Chambers

The president of the country's best-known Christian ministry dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction through prayer is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay people's sexual orientation can be permanently changed or "cured."

That's a significant shift for Exodus International, the 36-year-old Orlando-based group that boasts 260 member ministries around the U.S. and world. For decades, it has offered to help conflicted Christians rid themselves of unwanted homosexual inclinations through counseling and prayer, infuriating gay rights activists in the process.

This week, 600 Exodus ministers and followers are gathering for the group's annual conference, held this year in a Minneapolis suburb. The group's president, Alan Chambers, told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the conference would highlight his efforts to dissociate the group from the controversial practice usually called ex-gay, reparative or conversion therapy.

The entire story is here.

For Mentally Ill Inmates, Health Care Behind Bars is Often Out of Reach

By Elizabeth Chuck, msnbc.com

A man who was declared suicidal by a New Mexico jail and alleges he was then left to rot in solitary confinement for nearly two years is just one of many former inmates who say they were denied essential mental health services while incarcerated at that detention center, which like others across the country has struggled with how to treat the mentally ill.

Stephen Slevin, 57, made headlineslast week when a jury awarded him $22 million after he alleged inhumane treatment in the Dona Ana County Detention Center following his arrest in August 2005 on charges of driving while under the influence and possession of a stolen vehicle.

But a search of Dona Ana County court records reveals the detention center was also hit with a class-action lawsuit six months prior to Slevins', in which 13 former inmates alleged their constitutional rights to mental health care had been "continually and persistently ignored."

The lawsuit was settled in 2010, with a judgment of $400,000 for the plaintiffs and a commitment from the county to change its practices.

According to criminal justice experts, many other jails and prisons have struggled to adequately handle mentally ill inmates. Few areas of the country, they say, have the money and resources and staff to handle such a challenging population.

"The Supreme Court has established that you have a constitutional right to a basic level of adequate health care, which now includes mental health care," Thomas Hafemeister, an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law, told msnbc.com. "They've recognized that there tends to be limited resources in this setting. As long as a qualified professional has examined the inmate and exercised his or her judgment as to what needs to be done, that's all that is required."

'Cruel and unusual'

But Hafemeister, who has written about alternatives to the traditional criminal justice system for the mentally ill, explained that the definition of a "qualified professional" is a loose one.

"Some would argue for inmates, all that is required is medication," he said, meaning anyone with a medical degree, from a physician to a psychiatrist, could be considered qualified.

"Often it's very expensive. They're only willing to come in for an hour a week, and they zoom through very quickly. It can be a very cursory examination," Hafemeister said.

Slevin was detained for 22 months, released in June of 2007 without ever having been given a trial. By the time he was freed, he was deemed mentally incompetent, and his charges were dropped.

The rest of the story is here.

NY judge won't order Gitmo doc probe

By JENNIFER PELTZ, Associated Press

NEW YORK – A judge has declined to force an investigation into whether an Army psychologist developed abusive interrogation techniques for detainees at Guantanamo Bay and should be stripped of his license, halting what civil-rights advocates have called the first court case amid a push to shed light on psychologists' role in terror suspects' interrogations.

The person who brought the case — another psychologist — doesn't have legal standing to do so, Manhattan Civil Court Judge Saliann Scarpulla said in a ruling filed Thursday.

Rights activists and some psychologists have pressed regulators in several states — unsuccessfully so far — to explore whether psychologists violated professional rules by designing or observing abusive interrogations.

In New York, rights advocates focused on John F. Leso, saying he developed "psychologically and physically abusive" interrogation techniques for use on detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

The state Office of Professional Discipline, which oversees psychologists, declined last year to look into Leso. The agency said that his Army work is outside its purview and that the agency isn't in a position to address larger questions about the appropriateness of detainee interrogation methods.

The decision spurred the San Francisco-based Center for Justice and Accountability, the New York Civil Liberties Union and psychologist Steven Reisner to sue the agency last fall and ask the judge to force a review of techniques developed by Leso, who holds a New York psychologists' license.

"The ruling is unfortunate, as Dr. Reisner's claims raise serious and fundamental questions that should have their day in court," Center for Justice and Accountability lawyer Kathy Roberts said in a statement.

She said the groups are considering an appeal but also keeping their eye on proposed state legislation that would require investigating any allegation that a health care professional has participated in torture or other improper treatment.

Representatives for the state professional discipline office and the state Attorney General's office didn't immediately return calls. No contact information was immediately available for Leso, who isn't named in the court case and never chose to weigh in with a filing of his own. An Army spokesman didn't immediately return a call about Leso.

The rest of the story can be read here.