Right to refuse treatment: impact of Rivers v. Katz.
نویسندگان
چکیده
This article examines the impact of the New York court decision, Rivers v. Katz, which in June 1986 dramatically changed the state procedure for responding to involuntarily committed psychiatric patients who formally refused psychopharmacologic treatment. The court rejected the medically administered review process that had been used to respond to involuntarily committed psychiatric patients who formally refused medication, and replaced it with a judicial determination of competent and "substituted judgment" provided by the court. Post-Rivers, the rate of patients consistently refusing treatment decreased, and the time from refusal to resolution increased. The clinical, legal, and economic implications of the Rivers procedure are discussed.
منابع مشابه
Ethical Considerations in Respecting Patient's Autonomy and Right to Refuse Treatment: A case Report
One of the most challenging aspects of treatment is when patient seriously refuses the desired by treating physician. On the other hand, refusing treatment is a condition of the patient's right to be aware, but does such a right also imposes a moral obligation on the treating physician or not? This study discusses the diagnosis of Systemic Lupus Erythematosis disease. This article attempts to p...
متن کاملThe rights of involuntary patients to refuse pharmacotherapy: what is reasonable?
A number of prominent and often well-reasoned cases have increasingly defined a limited right, on the part of involuntarily detained psychiatric patients, to refuse treatment.3-12 Historically, most of these cases dealt with prisoners,6 or with patients who had religious objections to the treatments being imposed.3 However, as the mental health bar expanded and as scholarly critiques proliferat...
متن کاملInvoluntary patients' right to refuse medication: impact of the Riese decision on a California inpatient unit.
On June 22, 1989, the California Supreme Court allowed the Appellate Court decision in the right to refuse treatment case, Riese v. St. Mary's Hospital to stand. The court ruled that absent a judicial determination of incompetence, antipsychotic drugs cannot be administered to involuntarily committed mental patients in non-emergency situations without their informed consent. Much concern was ex...
متن کاملThe 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.
متن کاملThe impact of the right to refuse treatment in a forensic patient population: six-month review.
In December of 1987, the Wisconsin supreme court held that all involuntarily committed mental patients in the state had the right to refuse psychotropic medication unless a court held that they were incompetent to make treatment decisions. The authors studied the effects of this decision in a 165-bed forensic hospital over the first six months after implementation of the decision. They found th...
متن کاملذخیره در منابع من
با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید
برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید
ثبت ناماگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید
ورودعنوان ژورنال:
- The Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
دوره 18 2 شماره
صفحات -
تاریخ انتشار 1990