Skip to comments.Widow Chantel Blunk sues psychiatrist who treated Aurora shooter James Holmes
Posted on 01/17/2013 6:35:25 PM PST by Red SteelEdited on 01/18/2013 5:38:36 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
THE widow of a victim of the US theatre massacre is suing a psychiatrist for neglect, for failing to have the alleged shooter arrested despite him having "fantasised about killing a lot of people."
The lawsuit, also citing the University of Colorado, alleges that Dr Lynne Fenton advised campus police about her concern regarding James Holmes, after he told her about the fantasy in June last year.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.com.au ...
This should be interesting but I don’t think it will fly.
Gee, didn’t see that coming. /s
Doctor-patient priveledgse should not extend to the point where a patient is in danger of killing others. But it has to be THE DOCTOR who is smart enough to know.
She could have had him involuntarily committed as a danger to himself or others. I am not even a doctor and I had it done to my brother
This is not like a confessional and priest - which IS sacred. But even a priest can point out who is dangerous to the police without reveling what was said.
Lawyers will be making serious money on this one.
I don’t think such a suit is possible. There’s doctor-patient confidentiality, and the fact that you can’t arrest someone for their thoughts, no matter how disturbed. If he warned the right people, that’s all anyone can do. And anyway, liberals have made it impossible to commit someone to an insanity ward. I drive all the time past the place where “One Flew Over the Coocoo’s Nest” was filmed. It’s empty. All the nuts are wandering the streets now.
No Tarasoff duty to the public at large. This has summary judgment written all over it.
...having “fantasised about killing a lot of people.”
And what meds was he on that caused these thoughts and his subsequent actions?
Lets get to the root cause of all this.
I believe the doc works for the University...so there are hundreds of millions at stake here. I’m guessing that they will dissolve mental health offerings to the students in the future because they really can’t afford to ever encounter another event like this.
Most colleges will watch, and learn. You can figure that unless the state itself offers mental health...no one much is going to volunteer much of anything.
Personally, I would suspect that 250k people in the US need to be put into an institution immediately, and at least another 250k need long-term review. But, that’s not something that will ever happen. The crazies need to walk among us.
Is she any relation to Sandra Fluke?
In recent months I have heard many professionals on various talk shows describe how hard it is to get someone committed. The liberals have screwed that up to the point where it is almost impossible until violent crimes are committed. They can hold them for a day or so then have to release them. We can thank the liberals for this problem as well as the homeless problem.
While liberals love big government, it's power has not been extended to those who are in trouble mentally.
Libs have released the mentally ill onto our streets and then have blamed gun owners and others for the damage they have done to society.
Onyx...what say you?;-) You know first hand, while I am only an observer.
The problem is going to be context and level of the ‘fantasy’ in question IMO.
“fantasised about killing a lot of people.”
...could put a lot of liberals in jail if one applies it to Twitter accounts. Probably should.
But sis the psych think he was just being a Django movie watcher with a big mouth and a small...well you know. Or did she think he was a gen-U-ine psycho. That’s the problem.
They weren’t just thoughts ~ he demonstrated that.
If he had said for example that he had just flunked biology, and wanted to kill his biology professor, that would require the doctor to warn the professor and notify the authorities and notify the patient that she was doing so.
Things like this mass shooting are unpredictable at this stage in our knowledge and the false positives are way to high to begin restraining people for what most of the time is an idle expression of anger or resentment.
So you had someone involuntarily committed, and it was really easy? Was this recently?
Yeah, I’m calling BS, unless it took place many years ago. The asylums are simply not around anymore.
Sad but true. I used to volunteer at our church to help out "needy" and homeless people. Most were mentally ill liars. Mean too, some threatening us if we didn't help them.
>>And anyway, liberals have made it impossible to commit someone to an insanity ward. I drive all the time past the place where One Flew Over the Coocoos Nest was filmed. Its empty. All the nuts are wandering the streets now.
Worth saying again.
Also worth saying, on the other hand, I’m not sure I’d want it to be too easy to have someone committed. Leftists would use it against political enemies.
It is a tough thing all around.
It was not easy but it was pretty obvious to everyone he needed it (it was my brother) and so there was little objection all around
When he went outside in -5 degree weather to walk 40 miles to his ‘girlfriends’ house with just a spring jacket on, he is lucky they found him on the road before he froze to death.
Like the old Soviet Union? That’s one extreme, and letting dangerous or insane people loose among the rest of us is another. I like to think there is a middle ground.
I suspect they'll try to get settlements, but they might not defend if the can prove fraud on her part.
Given the fact this guy was already acting out by purchasing various components for infernal devices, if he mentioned any of that to her and she did nothing she is in some series and hugh trouble!
Not before he could take about 10 million others with him.
I agree. It isn’t the sort of thing that lends itself to the knee-jerk legislation that is being demanded at them moment, however.
Only the last one...the next one is either quite alive or yet to be born.
But he will be born...and rise to power.
That's the way this formula works. Solve the formula...find the next AntiChrist.
Also agree. The old Soviet Union appears to be making a come back.
Not entirely accurate; in fact any doctor has a legal responsibility to report any patient that has made threats of violence against other persons.
Very well. But to report and arrest are different things. Threats have been made against me, and there’s no legal action I could have taken. Someone once walked into my dad’s office and said he was going to kill him next time he came back. The cops said there was nothing they could do. Fortunately, the guy never came back. This just sounds like a lawyer trying to make money by spinning useless accusations in court. Nothing will come of it, likely.
I’m glad I found you post and ping, now that the difficulties have been solved.
I agree with you and I think my husband would too, although he’s always been the first to cite unethical crackpots in his field of medicine.
‘All the nuts are wandering the streets now.’
A former mental facilty in Ventura County,CA, is now a university.
There are ‘nomadic’ homeless types out and about, but unaware if they’re dangerous.
Theres doctor-patient confidentiality, and the fact that you cant arrest someone for their thoughts, no matter how disturbed.....Bohannon had a psychiatrist on just last night that said it IS a duty of Psychs. to report anyone who is an imminent threat and it happens often. That Dr./ patient confidentiality does not apply to shootings, dog bites, stabbings, spouse abusal or any number of injuries. It has recently been argued that Dr.s couldn’t report AIDS patient because that villified a homosexual part of society. The following quote is from ‘enotes.com’:In recent years, many courts have held that doctors also owe duties to protect non-patients who may be harmed by patients. For example, without a patient’s permission or knowledge, doctors may warn others or the police if the patient is mentally unstable, potentially violent, or has threatened a specific person. In some states, the duty to report or warn others “trumps” the right to confidentiality or privileged communication with a doctor. Courts will decide these matters by balancing the sanctity of the confidentiality against the foreseeability of harm to a third party.
Your point is excellent. It’s a slippery slope on both sides.
I know a man who had his first wife committed. There was nothing wrong with her other than that she wasn’t sufficiently “obedient.” He tried to do the same thing to his second wife, but didn’t get away with it. He’s now married to a third woman. I wonder how long before he tries to have her committed.