THE USE OF DRUGS, OR SO-CALLED TRUTH SERUMS, HAS A LONG HISTORY, AND EXTRAVAGANT CLAIMS AND PUBLICIZATION OF A FEW SUCCESSES HAVE LED TO MISGUIDED PUBLIC ATTITUDES ABOUT ITS EFFECTIVENESS AND RELIABILITY. THE EFFICACY OF AMYTAL INTERROGATION WILL DEPEND LARGELY ON THE SKILL OF THE INTERROGATOR AND THE DETERMINATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL TO MAINTAIN DECEPTION. IN GENERAL, A PHYSICIAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ADMINISTRATION OF THE DRUG TO THE SUSPECT, WHILE A POLICE OFFICER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE INTERVIEW. AMYTAL SHOULD BE ADMINISTERED IN A QUIET, ADEQUATELY LIGHTED ROOM IN THE PRESENCE OF NO MORE THAN TWO PEOPLE. VALID CONSENT SHOULD BE OBTAINED FROM THE INDIVIDUAL BEING EXAMINED, AND VIDEOTAPING OF THE SUBSEQUENT INTERVIEW IS RECOMMENDED. AMYTAL IS DILUTED AT 8.66 PERCENT AND INJECTED SLOWLY AT INTERVALS THROUGHOUT THE INTERVIEW SO THAT A STATE INTERMEDIATE TO SLEEP AND WAKEFULNESS IS MAINTAINED. CAFFEIN MAY BE REQUIRED TO PREVENT THE SUBJECT FROM LAPSING INTO A DEEP SLEEP. BECAUSE OF THE POTENTIAL FOR CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AND CARDIAC DEPRESSION, THE AMYTAL INTERVIEW SHOULD NOT EXCEED 1 HOUR IN DURATION. A NUMBER OF ETHICAL PROBLEMS ARISE WITH REGARD TO THE USE OF NARCOANALYSIS. MOST OF THESE INVOLVE THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE DOCTOR/PATIENT RELATIONSHIP AND THE PRIVILEGED NATURE OF INFORMATION OBTAINED DURING MEDICAL/PSYCHIATRIC EXAMINATION. THE POSITION OF THE PHYSICIAN IS ESPECIALLY DIFFICULT IN CASES WHERE HE IS RETAINED BY A THIRD PARTY SUCH AS THE COURT, AND WHEN HE BECOMES THE RECIPIENT OF INFORMATION IMPLICATING THE PATIENT IN THE COMMISSION OF A SERIOUS CRIME. ALTHOUGH THE COMMON LAW OF A NUMBER OF STATES DOES NOT RECOGNIZE PSYCHOTHERAPIST/PATIENT PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS, SEVERAL COURT DECISIONS HAVE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED NARCOANALYSIS FROM ADMISSION AS EVIDENCE, AND THE COURTS HAVE IN GENERAL EXPRESSED A HIGHLY CRITICAL ATTITUDE TOWARD ITS ACCEPTABILITY IN THE EVIDENTIARY PROCESS. IT IS CONCLUDED THAT BEFORE ANY PSYCHIATRIC TESTS CAN BE USED IN THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH, THE TESTS MUST BE TAKEN VOLUNTARILY AND WITH INFORMED CONSENT, THEY MUST BE USED ONLY AS ADJUNCT TO COMPLETE PSYCHIATRIC EVALUATION, AND THEY MUST NEVER BE USED TO PROVE THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER ASSERTED OR THE GUILT OR INNOCENCE OF THE ACCUSED AS THIS USURPS THE FUNCTION AND DUTY OF THE JURY. SUCH TRUTHS CAN ONLY BE APPROACHED TANGENTIALLY IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS AS PART OF EXPERT MEDICAL OPINION. A LIST OF REFERENCES IS PROVIDED. (JAP)