Citations

Abstract Rationale The United States has the highest per capita incarceration rate of any developed democracy. As the incarcerated population ages, medically complex and frail patients are increasingly hospitalized in the community, often arriving without decisional capacity and with limited family involvement. This is the first analysis of state laws and policies governing decision-making for incapacitated incarcerated patients. Methods Two team members independently conducted Westlaw and Internet searches for statutes, regulations and department of corrections (DOC) policies from 50 states and the District of Columbia, identifying language about medical decision-making for incapacitated incarcerated patients. These parallel searches were merged into a single database and reviewed by the analytic team, who created a codebook of inductively and deductively derived themes, guided by principles of grounded theory. The codebook was then systematically applied to the database by 2 independent coders; all data were double-coded. Disputes were resolved by consensus with the entire analytic team, in consultation with a legal scholar. Results Thirty-four of 51 jurisdictions have language addressing decision-making for incapacitated incarcerated patients. Data collected include the definition and determination of incapacity, language affirming incarcerated persons’ right to autonomy in medical decision-making, approaches to decision-making for patients with and without surrogate decision-makers, and whether treatment over patient/surrogate objection is authorized. Assertions about the importance of advance care planning (n = 25) are often undercut by procedural hurdles (n = 20), such as complex witnessing requirements for advance directive completion. Many jurisdictions (n = 26) allow family or friends to serve as legally recognized decision-makers. Thirteen jurisdictions exclude an incarcerated person from serving as decision-maker for another incarcerated person. Fourteen jurisdictions have provisions allowing for treatment over the objection of a patient or their surrogate. While approaches to unrepresented patients differ widely (Figure), 5 jurisdictions grant narrow decisional authority to treating physicians and 4 jurisdictions authorize correctional employees to make medical decisions. Conclusion A heterogeneous assortment of laws, policies and regulations govern the care of incapacitated incarcerated patients, with wide variation observed from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. One-third of jurisdictions lack policies or language regarding decision-making processes for incapacitated incarcerated patients. Even more troubling, 14 jurisdictions allow treatment over a patient or surrogate’s objection and 4 jurisdictions delegate authority over decisions for unrepresented patients to correctional employees, such as the prison medical director or the warden. These findings raise serious concerns about autonomy, beneficence and justice. National reform is needed to align correctional policies with established ethical standards for surrogate decision-making. This abstract is funded by: National Institute on Aging

Abstract Eating disorders and substance use disorders frequently co‐occur. Twin studies reveal shared genetic variance between liabilities to eating disorders and substance use, with the strongest associations between symptoms of bulimia nervosa and problem alcohol use (genetic correlation [ r g ], twin‐based = 0.23‐0.53). We estimated the genetic correlation between eating disorder and substance use and disorder phenotypes using data from genome‐wide association studies (GWAS). Four eating disorder phenotypes (anorexia nervosa [AN], AN with binge eating, AN without binge eating, and a bulimia nervosa factor score), and eight substance‐use‐related phenotypes (drinks per week, alcohol use disorder [AUD], smoking initiation, current smoking, cigarettes per day, nicotine dependence, cannabis initiation, and cannabis use disorder) from eight studies were included. Significant genetic correlations were adjusted for variants associated with major depressive disorder and schizophrenia. Total study sample sizes per phenotype ranged from ~2400 to ~537 000 individuals. We used linkage disequilibrium score regression to calculate single nucleotide polymorphism‐based genetic correlations between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes. Significant positive genetic associations emerged between AUD and AN ( r g = 0.18; false discovery rate q = 0.0006), cannabis initiation and AN ( r g = 0.23; q < 0.0001), and cannabis initiation and AN with binge eating ( r g = 0.27; q = 0.0016). Conversely, significant negative genetic correlations were observed between three nondiagnostic smoking phenotypes (smoking initiation, current smoking, and cigarettes per day) and AN without binge eating ( r gs = −0.19 to −0.23; qs < 0.04). The genetic correlation between AUD and AN was no longer significant after co‐varying for major depressive disorder loci. The patterns of association between eating disorder‐ and substance‐use‐related phenotypes highlights the potentially complex and substance‐specific relationships among these behaviors.