The American Psychiatric Association (APA) has updated its Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including with new information specifically addressed to individuals in the European Economic Area. As described in the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, this website utilizes cookies, including for the purpose of offering an optimal online experience and services tailored to your preferences.

Please read the entire Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. By closing this message, browsing this website, continuing the navigation, or otherwise continuing to use the APA's websites, you confirm that you understand and accept the terms of the Privacy Policy and Terms of Use, including the utilization of cookies.

×
Published Online:https://doi.org/10.1176/ps.40.11.1159

Since the Rivers v. Katz decision in 1986, clinicians in New York State have been required to assess patient decision-making capacity before judicial review of petitions to administer involuntary medication. The authors examined 42 capacity assessments made by psychiatrists at a large state hospital in New York City. Although the capacity assessments were often incomplete and rarely addressed the treatment decision, most clinicians judged patients as lacking capacity to make treatment decisions. The findings suggest that psychiatrists may view capacity assessments as irrelevant because of the manifestly grave nature of patients' illnesses or may not differentiate the capacity assessment from the mental status examination. The capacity assessment may nonetheless be a useful tool because it encourages clinicians to discuss the proposed treatment with patients and to present information more effectively in court.

Access content

To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.