%0 Journal Article
	%A Bill D. Geis and  Frederick Newman
	%D 2023
	%J International Journal of Psychological and Behavioral Sciences
	%B World Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology
	%I Open Science Index 199, 2023
	%T Suicide Wrongful Death: Standard of Care Problems Involving the Inaccurate Discernment of Lethal Risk When Focusing on the Elicitation of Suicide Ideation
	%U https://publications.waset.org/pdf/10013157
	%V 199
	%X Suicide and wrongful death forensic cases are the fastest rising tort in mental health law. Most suicide-related personal injury claims fall into the legal category of “wrongful death.” Though mental health experts may be called on to address a range of forensic questions in wrongful death cases, the central consultation that most experts provide is about the negligence element—specifically, the issue of whether the clinician met the clinical standard of care in assessing, treating, and managing the deceased person’s mental health care. Standards of care, varying from US state to state, are broad and address what a reasonable clinician might do in a similar circumstance. This fact leaves the issue of the suicide standard of care, in each case, up to forensic experts to put forth a reasoned estimate of what the standard of care should have been in the specific case under litigation. Because the general state guidelines for standard of care are broad, forensic experts are readily retained to provide scientific and clinical opinions about whether or not a clinician met the standard of care in their suicide assessment, treatment, and management of the case. In the past and in much of current practice, the assessment of suicide has centered on the elicitation of verbalized suicide ideation. But suicide ideation, in the matter of suicide risk determination, may be a necessary but insufficient target of lethal suicide risk assessment. Assessment of near-term suicide risk—assessment that goes beyond verbalized suicide ideation and relates to acute crisis variables—is likely needed. Specifically, such other or additional suicide risk variable assessment may be required in the context of lethal suicide risk situations, as opposed to the discernment of general, nonlethal suicide behavior as a standard of practice (whether a patient is having suicidal thoughts or exhibiting an ambivalent suicide attempt potential). In the current study, verbalized suicide ideation information was unhelpful in the assessment of lethal risk. The Lethal Suicide Risk Assessment, Acute Model, and other dynamic, near-term risk models (such as the Acute Suicide Affective Disorder Model and the Suicide Crisis Syndrome Model)—going beyond elicited suicide ideation—need to be incorporated into current clinical suicide assessment training and become the legal standard of care for expected clinical behavior. Without this expanded clinical assessment perspective, the standard of care for suicide assessment is out of sync with current knowledge—an emerging dilemma for the forensic evaluation of suicide wrongful death cases. 
	%P 137 - 141