Eye tracking and child sexual offenders: a systematic review.

Eye tracking is used in sexology to identify attractiveness and sexual desire indirectly. This systematic review summarizes results of works that have used eye tracking to analyse paedophilic interest in order to investigate its potential as a useful forensic tool. Six studies met the inclusion criteria. Five of them concerned a large study project and used approximatively the same sample of paedophiles (inpatients), forensic patients (without a sexual interest in children) and healthy controls to make comparisons between the three groups. One study added 11 self-declared paedophiles (outpatients) for a comparison between inpatient paedophiles, outpatient paedophiles and controls (healthy and forensic inpatients). One study compared a group of child sexual offenders with non-offenders. All studies used static pictures of male and female subjects at different pubertal stages. Some studies divided every picture into a different area of interest. Dependent variables used are fixation latency (early attention) and relative fixation time, (later attention). Each study identified significant differences between the paedophile group versus other groups: shorter fixation latency on child pictures, longer fixation time on child pictures and number of fixation most important on child pictures. Two scores (age preference index and attentional control index) showed hight and/or moderate sensitivity and specificity. Although the results suggest the eye tracking can discriminate between paedophile interest and non-paedophile interest, there are too few studies on this specific topic and further research is needed with larger and different sample, carried out by different research teams. If these findings were confirmed, it remains unclear as to their impact in a forensic context when presented openly in Court.

Psychiatric Commitment: Sixty Years Under the Scrutiny of the European Court of Human Rights.

Background and Aims: In the field of mental health, the fundamental right to liberty is a point of tension between the practice of psychiatric commitment on the one hand and the universal concept of human rights on the other. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a very specific means of safeguarding human rights because it allows an individual to not only assert their rights but also compel a state to bring its legislation into conformity with the principles of the European Convention on Human Rights. The aim of this study was to gather the case-law of the ECtHR on psychiatric commitment over the last 60 years and to determine how this case-law has affected national legislation and therefore psychiatric practice. Methods: Jurisprudence data were collected from the HUDOC ECtHR database, and the direct effects of the ECtHR judgements on the legislations of the countries concerned were collected from the HUDOC EXEC database of the Council of Europe. The case-law of the Court included 118 judgements and 56 decisions and concerned 31 of the 45 countries that have ratified the Convention. Results: This study therefore showed a direct effect of the Court's case-law on the legislation on psychiatric commitment in the various countries that have ratified the Convention. It was also possible to detect an indirect effect of this case-law through the directives of international institutions such as the directives of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning respect for people with mental disorders. Conclusions: The ECtHR case-law therefore has a major influence on the psychiatric practice in all Council of Europe countries.

What does impartiality mean in medico-legal psychiatry? An international survey.

Medico-legal psychiatry is the field of forensic psychiatry that consists of reporting to criminal, civil and administrative authorities and testifying in courts of law. As a forensic science, medico-legal psychiatry is based on the principle of impartiality. However, the notion of impartiality is not clearly defined and can be understood in many different ways. The purpose of this study was to explore the meaning that expert psychiatrists attribute to this notion. Members of the forensic sections of the World Psychiatric Association, the European Psychiatric Association and the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law were surveyed by e-mail using a vignette and a questionnaire. One hundred and thirty-one responses were received. When commenting on the case presented in the vignette, a large majority of respondents considered that the personal moral convictions of the doctor were the main factor likely to cast doubt on the impartiality of the expert, followed by past personal experience and the fact that the expert was the treating doctor of the examinee. In the answers to the questionnaire, 54% of participants considered that the question of impartiality was similar in both the inquisitorial and adversarial systems. Impartiality was considered by most participants as both an ethical and a legal concept. The main factors considered as likely to affect the impartiality of an expert were past personal experience, personal beliefs and perceptions, and the fact that the expert was the treating doctor of the examinee. Training in forensic psychiatry and past professional experience were considered to be the most important factors that could enhance the impartiality of an expert. When asked about their own definition, 70% of respondents defined impartiality as a choice specific to the expert, and 27% of participants defined impartiality as a result of external factors. The term 'objectivity' was used in 30% of responses. Results revealed a rather unified view of the issue of impartiality by medico-legal psychiatrists, irrespective of their country and practice conditions. The notions of honesty and striving for objectivity, which are emphasized in several guidelines of forensic psychiatry associations, were cited by many participants. Impartiality appears to be considered as a coherent concept in both normative and consequentialist ethics and represents a useful reference in the practice of medico-legal psychiatry.

Psychiatric care without consent in France: Does the type of administrative measure chosen differ according to patients' clinical profile?

The French Mental Health Law of 5 July 2011 stipulates that psychiatric patients can be hospitalized in five different ways. Three types of admission for involuntary treatment are defined under "admission at the request of a third party". The first is "psychiatric care at the request of a third party", followed by two "exceptional" admission measures in the case of an emergency ("emergency psychiatric care at the request of a third party") and imminent danger ("psychiatric care in the case of imminent danger"). The aim of this retrospective study was to determine whether the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients involuntarily admitted to psychiatric care in a French regional teaching hospital differed according to the administrative measure enabling this type of placement. We reviewed a sample of admission medical certificates issued between 1 July 2014 and 30 June 30, 2015 at the Tours University Hospital (France) for psychiatric care without consent. We recorded the following patient characteristics. Collected data included the type of care measure, age, gender, and the presence or absence of various clinical syndromes, such as suicidal thoughts and behavioral, depressive, manic or psychotic disorders. Multivariable analysis showed that a psychotic syndrome was a risk factor for hospitalization under "exceptional" measures and a behavioral syndrome for hospitalization under "psychiatric care at the request of a third party". Several clinical profiles emerged, but suicidal thoughts did not appear to be associated with the type of measures taken. In our sample, the choice of measure applied does not appear to rely on the only clinical observation at admission, contrary to what was planned in the Law.