Is dangerousness an issue for physicians in emergency commitment?



	Full Text (PDF)
	Alert me when this article is cited
	Alert me if a correction is posted



	Email this article to a Colleague
	Similar articles in this journal
	Similar articles in PubMed
	Alert me to new issues of the journal
	Add to My Articles & Searches
	Download to citation manager



	Citing Articles via HighWire
	Citing Articles via Google Scholar



	Articles by Peszke, M. A.
	Search for Related Content



	PubMed Citation
	Articles by Peszke, M. A.

Am J Psychiatry 1975; 132:825-828
Copyright © 1975 by American Psychiatric Association

REGULAR ARTICLES

Is dangerousness an issue for physicians in emergency commitment?

MA Peszke

The laws of many of the states require a physician to determine that a mentally ill individual presents a danger to others before the disturbed person can be civilly committed for involuntary treatment. The author contends that the prediction of dangerousness is not and should not be within the competence of medicine, but that physicians are competent to judge whether or not the severity of mental illness impairs a patient's competence to make an informed decision regarding treatment. The basic issue in emergency commitment is the patient's welfare, not his potential dangerousness. Dr. Alan A. Stone comments on Dr. Peszke's presentation.

This article has been cited by other articles:

M. J. Moran, M. G. Sweda, M. R. Fragala, and J. Sasscer-Burgos
The Clinical Application of Risk Assessment in the Treatment-Planning Process
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, August 1, 2001; 45(4): 421 - 435.
[Abstract] [PDF]

P. S. Appelbaum
Is the Need for Treatment Constitutionally Acceptable as a Basis for Civil Commitment?
J. Law Med. Ethics, September 1, 1984; 12(4): 144 - 149.
[PDF]

E. M. Scott
Group Therapy with Convicts on Work Release in Oregon
Int J Offender Ther Comp Criminol, September 1, 1976; 20(3): 225 - 235.

Get information about faster international access.