Recent mental health litigation: a critical perspective
Abstract
The author considers the effect of recent mental health litigation involving involuntary confinement, the right to refuse treatment, the least restrictive alternative, and the right to treatment on the role of the psychiatrist and the provision of mental health care. His thesis is that the implicit analogies between psychiatrists and agents of the criminal justice system and between patients and criminal defendants are misleading and that the recent changes in the law based on these analogies adversely affect the provision of mental health care.
Access content
To read the fulltext, please use one of the options below to sign in or purchase access.- Personal login
- Institutional Login
- Sign in via OpenAthens
- Register for access
-
Please login/register if you wish to pair your device and check access availability.
Not a subscriber?
PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.
Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing [email protected] or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).
