TY  - BOOK
AU  - Saks,Elyn R.
TI  - Refusing care: forced treatment and the rights of the mentally ill 
SN  - 9780226733999 (electronic bk.)
AV  - RC343 .S245 2002eb
U1  - 362.2/0973 22
PY  - 2002///
CY  - Chicago
PB  - University of Chicago Press
KW  - Involuntary treatment
KW  - Mental illness
KW  - Treatment
KW  - Commitment of Mentally Ill
KW  - United States
KW  - Mental Competency
KW  - Mental Disorders
KW  - diagnosis
KW  - Restraint, Physical
KW  - Treatment Refusal
KW  - Traitement non volontaire (Thérapeutique)
KW  - Maladies mentales
KW  - Traitement
KW  - PSYCHOLOGY
KW  - Mental Health
KW  - bisacsh
KW  - Mental Illness
KW  - MEDICAL
KW  - Electronic books
N1  - Includes bibliographical references (p. 257-291) and index; 1. Doctors and lawyers: why can't we all just get along? -- 2. Mental illness: making myths or genuine disorders? -- 3. Civil commitment: how civil? -- 4. The right to refuse medication: when can I just say no? -- 5. Seclusion: the path of least resistance? -- 6. Mechanical restraints: loosening the bonds -- 7. Imcompetency and impairment: choices made, choices denied -- 8. Self-binding: Ulysess at the mast -- 9. Conclusion
N2  - "It has been said that how a society treats its least fortunate members speaks volumes about its humanity. If so, our treatment of the mentally ill may suggest that American society is in many senses inhumane: swinging between overintervention and utter neglect, we sometimes force extreme treatments on those who do not want them, and at other times discharge mentally ill patients who do want treatment without providing adequate resources for their care in the community." "Refusing Care focuses on the former problem - that of overintervention - asking when, if ever, the mentally ill should be treated against their will. Basing her analysis on both compelling case histories and empirical studies, Elyn R. Saks brings together her experience in law and in psychiatry to explore the dilemmas raised by forced treatment in three contexts: civil commitment, or forced hospitalization for noncriminals; medication; and seclusion and restraints. Saks argues that the best way to solve each of these dilemmas is, paradoxically, to be both more protective of individual autonomy and more paternalistic than current law calls for. For instance, while Saks advocates relaxing the standards for first commitment after a psychotic episode, she would also prohibit extreme mechanical restraints, such as tying someone spread-eagled to a bed. Finally, because of the often extreme prejudice against the mentally ill in American society, Saks proposes standards that, as much as possible, should apply equally to non-mentally ill and mentally ill people alike."--Jacket
UR  - http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=315509
ER  -