Realism and drug refusal: a reply to Appelbaum and Gutheil.

Refusal Speech Act Realization in Sarawani Balochi Dialect: A Case Study of Male University Students

Following Beebe, Takahashi, and Uliss-Weltz’s (1990) classification, this study examines the relationship between power and gender of the addressees and the type and number of refusal strategies employed by Sarawani Baloch male university students (SBMUS). Fifty SBMUS studying in Azad University of Sarawan were randomly chosen as the participants of the study. Data collection was accomplished t...

The right to refuse treatment: the real issue is quality of care.

"Rotting with their rights on": constitutional theory and clinical reality in drug refusal by psychiatric patients.

The recently formulated right of hospitalized psychiatric patients to refuse medication l has drawn increasing attention in the medical and legal literature and in the courts. Unfortunately, almost all that has been written approaches the subject theoretically, from the viewpoint of the development of constitutional law, without paying sufficient attention to the clinical realities or to the ac...

"Mind control," "synthetic sanity," "artificial competence," and genuine confusion: legally relevant effects of antipsychotic medication.

Several recent court decisions have granted committed mental patients statutory or constitutional rights to refuse unwanted treatment provided that the patient did not present dangers to himself or others.1 Typically, the treatment in question has involved a class of drugs referred to as "antipsychotic medication." Although these cases have created a storm of controversy in both the medical and...

The right to refuse treatment under Rogers v. Commissioner: preliminary empirical findings and comparisons.

Preliminary findings on the effects of the Massachusetts ruling in Rogers v. Commissioner, an important right to refuse treatment case, are compared with models in other jurisdictions. In sum, few cases are reviewed; in almost all reviewed, the court overrides the patients' refusal. The case raises troubling implications about due process and quality of care.