Home / Publications / NCJRS Abstract

PUBLICATIONS

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.

NCJ Number:	185437

Title:	Case Against Outpatient Commitment

Journal:	Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law Volume:28 Issue:2 Dated:2000 Pages:165-170

Author(s):	Michael A. Hoge Ph.D.; Elizabeth Grottole MPH

Date Published:	2000

Page Count:	6

Type:	Legislation/Policy Analysis

Format:	Article

Language:	English

Country:	United States of America

Annotation:	This article challenges the logic and legitimacy of using the courts to force treatment compliance of individuals who are neither incompetent by legal standards nor at imminent risk of harming themselves or others.

Abstract:	The American Psychiatric Association Council on Psychiatry and Law has issued a Resource Document that supports the use of mandatory outpatient treatment. There are major flaws in the logic and recommendations of this report, as well as problems with the concept of outpatient commitment in general. This article outlines these concerns and then presents the case of an individual who is in many ways typical of those targeted for outpatient commitment. The authors use this case to suggest that providing intensive ambulatory treatment rather than depriving patients of their rights should be the primary concern. The authors argue that society, through its mental health systems, has been offering inadequate behavioral health services to those most in need; this has resulted in the use of mandated outpatient treatment as a mechanism for ensuring adequate service provision to selected individuals. Resorting to depriving patients of their rights to ensure that they receive adequate services is misguided and does serious injustice to those being treated. Individuals suffering from mental disorders should first receive intensive treatments without the imposition of a judicial order that mandates compliance. This will allow a determination as to whether this less restrictive approach is sufficient. Legal mandates for treatment, if they are to be used, should not occur until appropriate treatments have been provided on a voluntary basis and have been shown to be ineffective. The most challenging part of professional responsibility may be refraining from the violation of patient liberties to achieve the desired ends of treatment. 20 references

Main Term(s):	Corrections policies

Index Term(s):	Involuntary treatment; Mental health services; Offender mental health services; Voluntary treatment



	To cite this abstract, use the following link: http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/publications/abstract.aspx?ID=185437

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.

PUBLICATIONS

NCJRS Abstract

Find in a Library