The Supreme Court of Texas reviewed a case involving the interpretation of the term "psychiatrist" in the context of involuntary civil commitment for mental illness. The case concerned A.R.C., a 34-year-old man showing psychotic and delusional behavior. Two second-year psychiatry residents completed the required medical examination forms, but a question arose as to whether they could be considered psychiatrists under the relevant law.
The court ruled that these residents were psychiatrists, reversing the lower court's decision. It stated that physicians in specialized psychiatric training qualified as psychiatrists under the statute, rejecting the idea that only board-certified psychiatrists could fulfill the requirement. The court emphasized that judges, not physicians, decide on involuntary commitment, and noted that the legislature can amend qualifications for psychiatrists as long as they meet constitutional standards for competent testimony.
The case was sent back to the court of appeals for further consideration of A.R.C.'s remaining challenges.
Comments