v. PAS Treatment Violates Medical and Legal Duties of Care

http://209.198.129.131/images/EvidentiaryAmissibilityofPAW_Hoult_CLRJ_2006.pdf
Vol. 26 ♦ No. 1 ♦ Spring 2006
Jennifer Hoult
Children’s Legal Rights Journal
Evidentiary Admissibility of Parental Alienation Syndrome
page 7 to 8



v. PAS Treatment Violates Medical and
Legal Duties of Care
Medical professionals have a legal duty to act in
the best interest of their patients.
147
 While
standard psychiatric practice provides a separate
therapist for each family member, with each
therapist having duties of care to his individual
client, PAS treatment requires that one PAS
therapist treat the entire family.
148
 Additionally,
Gardner instructs PAS therapists to act, not in
privity with the interests of the mother or child,
but as state agents who promote the interests of
the father.
149
 He instructs therapists to violate
their patients’ confidentiality,
150
  to  ignore  and
deny children’s reports of abuse (violating
mandated reporting laws),
 151
 and to threaten the
children into compliance with their abusers.
152
Additionally, while coercive medical treatments
are used in emergencies for patients who pose
risks to themselves or others, there is no evidence
that alienated children or women who express
negative views of their ex-husbands pose such
risks. Using coercive treatment in non-emergency
situations circumvents women and children’s legal 8  Jennifer Hoult
Children’s Legal Rights Journal
rights to refuse treatment. Given these violations
of medical ethics and legal duties, PAS treatment
appears to constitute per se medical malpractice.
 Gardner similarly instructs attorneys for
children diagnosed with PAS to violate child
abuse reporting laws; instead of instructing attorneys to “align themselves” with their child-client’s
interests, Gardner instructs attorneys to coerce
their clients into unwanted contact with the
rejected.
153
 Gardner claims that attorneys who act
in their client’s interest contribute to the client’s
pathology, thus he argues that attorneys in PAS
cases must “unlearn” the principle of zealous
advocacy.
154
 These suggestions require that attorneys violate the rules of professional conduct.
http://209.198.129.131/images/EvidentiaryAmissibilityofPAW_Hoult_CLRJ_2006.pdf