@article{ref1,
title="Your liberty or your gun? A survey of psychiatrist understanding of mental health prohibitors",
journal="Journal of law, medicine and ethics",
year="2020",
author="Barnett, Brian and Ayres, Ian and Newlon, Cara",
volume="48",
number="Suppl 4",
pages="155-163",
abstract="This first-of-its-kind national survey of 485 psychiatrists in nine states and the District of Columbia (DC) finds substantial evidence of clinicians being uninformed,  misinformed, and misinforming patients of their gun rights regarding involuntary  commitments and voluntary inpatient admissions. A significant percentage of  psychiatrists (36.9%) did not understand that an involuntary civil commitment  triggered the loss of gun rights, and the majority of psychiatrists in states with  prohibitors on voluntary admissions (57%) and emergency holds (56%) were unaware  that patients would lose gun rights upon voluntary admission or temporary  commitment. Moreover, the survey found evidence that psychiatrists may use gun  rights to negotiate &quot;voluntary&quot; commitments with patients: 15.9% of respondents  reported telling patients they could preserve their gun rights by permitting  themselves to be voluntarily admitted for treatment, in lieu of being involuntarily  committed. The results raise questions of whether psychiatrists obtained full  informed consent for voluntary patient admissions, and suggest that some medical  providers in states with voluntary admission prohibitor laws may unwittingly deprive  their patients of a constitutional right. The study calls into question the fairness  of state prohibitor laws as policy, and - at minimum - indicates an urgent need for  psychiatrist training on their state gun laws.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="1073-1105",
doi="10.1177/1073110520979417",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1073110520979417"
}