Civil commitment is a legal process in which persons may be involuntarily detained for psychiatric evaluation and treatment if, because of mental illness, they are at imminent risk of harming themselves or others. Procedures that protect such persons from undue infringements of their personal liberties vary by state. Some jurisdictions permit individuals to waive their right to contest a hearing and instead stipulate to civil commitment. This differs from voluntary hospitalization in that the individuals accede to treatment for the term of commitment and forgo the possibility of either subsequent voluntary consent or withdrawal of consent. The authors describe a 50-state review examining whether statutory law permits these waivers. We show that many states allow a waiver but do not require that the person have decision-making capacity. Capacity assessment is essential because persons with impaired decision-making may accept a commitment that might otherwise have been successfully challenged, and commitment can have unwanted consequences, including extended hospitalization, loss of rights, and stigma. We propose procedures and criteria for assessing capacity to stipulate that include not only understanding that stipulation will result in commitment but also understanding the nature, purposes, consequences, and processes involved in commitment.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, officials in the United States at all levels of government utilized their legal authorities to impose a wide range of measures designed to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2 (severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2; the causative agent of COVID-19), including shutting down businesses, limiting the size of gatherings, requiring masking, and mandating vaccination. These orders and regulations were challenged in court cases that resulted in more than 1000 judicial decisions. Common claims were based on alleged procedural and substantive due process violations, violations of religious liberty, and violations of officials\' scope of authority. In more than three fourths of the decisions, the court refused to grant the plaintiffs the relief sought. However, plaintiffs found success in several notable cases, especially in federal court. These recent decisions, as well as broader prepandemic trends, have important implications for public health officials\' exercise of their public health powers, especially when those exercises implicate religious liberty. In this legal environment, officials may need to rely more on the powers of persuasion than on their legal authority alone. (Am J Public Health. 2023;113(3):280-287. https://doi.org/10.2105/10.2105/AJPH.2022.307181).

There is a high prevalence of people with intellectual disability (ID) among those in police custody. Consequently, law enforcement officers (LEOs) at the frontline of the criminal justice system are commonly required to interact with people who have ID. Notwithstanding the frequency of these interactions, research indicates that police exchanges with persons with ID frequently take place against a backdrop of tenuously-resourced disability awareness training. At the time of writing, a paucity of research data exists with respect to the experiences of LEOs operating within this training vacuum at an international level. A better understanding of their experiences could meaningfully inform research, training and improve support programmes for LEO\'s. We systematically reviewed six databases to identify studies published up to 1st December 2019 reporting the experience of LEOs interfacing with suspects who have an ID. Following a review of 670 abstracts, 16 studies were identified from five countries involving 983 LEOs. LEOs identified 1) a need for specialised training; 2) challenges in identifying people with ID; 3) a need to improve safeguards and 4) challenges in supporting/communicating with individuals who have ID through the investigation process.

Increasingly, healthcare and non-healthcare employers prohibit or penalize the use of tobacco products among current and new employees in the United States. Despite this trend, and for a range of different reasons, around half of states currently legally protect employees from being denied positions, or having employment contracts terminated, due to tobacco use.
We undertook a conceptual analysis of legal provisions in all 50 states.
We found ethically relevant variations in terms of how tobacco is defined, which employee populations are protected, and to what extent they are protected. Furthermore, the underlying ethical rationales for smoker protection differ, and can be grouped into two main categories: prevention of discrimination and protection of privacy.
We critically discuss these rationales and the role of their advocates and argue that enabling equality of opportunity is a more adequate overarching concept for preventing employers from disadvantaging smokers.

The implementation of an effective and legally sound technical standards procedure for pharmacy schools requires a proactive approach by admissions officers. Applicants with disabilities are accorded significant rights that must not be infringed during the admissions process in order to ensure compliance with applicable law. This article provides a review of applicable state cases, federal cases, and OCR decisions and guidance to help pharmacy schools identify procedures and implement technical standards into their admissions processes as required by ACPE Standards 2016.

The right to vote is an important right signifying freedom of thought as well as full citizenship in any setting. Right to vote is enshrined and protected by international human rights treaties. The right of \'everyone\' to take part in the political process and elections is based on universal and equal suffrage. Although these International Conventions have been ratified by the large majority of United Nations Member States, their application across the globe is by no means universal. This study sets out to examine the domestic laws of UN Member States in order to explore whether individuals with mental health problems have the right to vote in actuality and, thu,s can participate in political life. Through various searches, electoral laws and Constitutions of 193 Member States of the United Nations were studied. The authors were able to find legislation and/or Constitutional provisions in 167 of the 193 Member States. Twenty-one countries (11%) only placed no restrictions on the right to vote by persons with mental health problems. Over one third of the countries (36%) deny all persons with any mental health problems a right to vote without any qualifier. Some of these discriminatory attitudes are reflected in the multiplicity of terms used to describe persons with mental health problems. Another 21 countries (11%) denied the right to vote to detained persons; of these, nine Member States specifically denied the right to vote to persons who were detained under the mental health law, while the remainder denied the right to vote to all those who were interdicted or judicially interdicted. It would appear that in many countries the denial of voting rights is attributed to a lack of ability to consent by the individuals with mental illness. Further exploration of explanation is required to understand these variations, which exist in spite of international treaties.

Decision-making regarding an asylum request of a minor requires decision-makers to determine the best interests of the child when the minor is relatively unknown. This article presents a systematic review of the existing knowledge of the situation of recently arrived refugee children in the host country. This research is based on the General Comment No. 14 of UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. It shows the importance of knowing the type and number of stressful life events a refugee child has experienced before arrival, as well as the duration and severity of these events. The most common mental health problems children face upon arrival in the host country are PTSD, depression and various anxiety disorders. The results identify the relevant elements of the best interests of the child assessment, including implications for procedural safeguards, which should promote a child rights-based decision in the asylum procedure.

Police brutality, a longstanding civil rights issue, has returned to the forefront of American public debate. A growing body of public health research shows that excessive use of force by police and racial profiling have adverse effects on health for African Americans and other marginalized groups. Yet, interventions to monitor unlawful policing have been met with fierce opposition at the federal, state, and local levels. On April 30, 2015, the mayor of Newark, New Jersey signed an executive order establishing a Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB) to monitor the Newark Police Department (NPD). Using a mixed-methods approach, this study examined how advocates and government actors accomplished this recent policy change in the face of police opposition and after a 50-year history of unsuccessful attempts in Newark. Drawing on official public documents, news media, and interviews conducted in April and May 2015, I propose that: (1) a Department of Justice investigation of the NPD, (2) the activist background of the Mayor and his relationships with community organizations, and (3) the momentum provided by the national Black Lives Matter movement were pivotal in overcoming political obstacles to reform. Examining the history of CCRB adoption in Newark suggests when and where advocates may intervene to promote policing reforms in other US cities.

BACKGROUND: Laws on compulsory commitment to care (CCC) in mental health, social and criminal legislation for adult persons with alcohol and/or drug dependence or misuse problems are constructed to address different scenarios related to substance use disorders. This study examines how such CCC laws in European states vary in terms of legal rights, formal orders of decision and criteria for involuntary admission, and assesses whether three legal frameworks (criminal, mental and social law) equally well ensure human and civil rights.
METHODS: Thirty-nine laws, from 38 countries, were analysed. Respondents replied in web-based questionnaires concerning a) legal rights afforded the persons with substance use problems during commitment proceedings, b) sources of formal application, c) instances for decision on admission, and d) whether or not 36 different criteria could function as grounds for decisions on CCC according to the law in question. Analysis of a-c were conducted in bivariate cross-tabulations. The 36 criteria for admission were sorted in criteria groups based on principal component analysis (PCA). To investigate whether legal rights, decision-making authorities or legal criteria may discriminate between types of law on CCC, discriminant analyses (DA) were conducted.
RESULTS: There are few differences between the three types of law on CCC concerning legal rights afforded the individual. However, proper safeguards of the rights against unlawful detention seem still to be lacking in some CCC laws, regardless type of law. Courts are the decision-making body in 80 % of the laws, but this varies clearly between law types. Criteria for CCC also differ between types of law, i.e. concerning who should be treated: dependent offenders, persons with substance use problems with acting out or aggressive behaviors, or other vulnerable persons with alcohol or drug problems.
CONCLUSIONS: The study raises questions concerning whether various European CCC laws in relation to substance use disorder or misuse problems comply with international ratified conventions concerning human and civil rights. This, however, applies to all three types of law, i.e. social, mental health and criminal legislation. The main differences between law types concern legal criteria, reflecting different national priorities on implicit ambitions of CCC - for correction, for prevention, or for support to those in greatest need of care.

Use of restraint chairs by law enforcement for violent individuals has generated controversy and a source of litigation because of reported injuries and deaths of restrained subjects. The purpose of this study is to review the available medical and legal literature and to allow the development of evidence-based, best practice recommendations to inform the further development of restraint chair policies. This is a structured literature review of four databases, two medical and two legal. The medical review focus was on the restraint chair with additional review of materials regarding other restraint methods and options. The legal review focused on litigation cases involving the restraint chair. The review of the medical literature revealed 21 peer-reviewed studies investigating the physiological or psychological effects of using a restraint chair on humans or primates. Of these studies, 20 were performed on primates. The single human study revealed no clinically significant effects from the restraint chair on test subjects. The legal literature review revealed very few cases where the restraint chair was either a major or minor focus. The overall issues relating to the restraint chair cases involved deviations from set protocols and rarely involved issues with the chair itself. The available medical literature reveals that the restraint chair poses little to no medical risk. Additionally, when used appropriately, the restraint chair alone carries little legal liability. With proper monitoring and adherence to set protocols, the restraint chair is a safe and appropriate device for use in restraining violent individuals.