Catalogue


Refusing care [electronic resource] : forced treatment and the rights of the mentally ill /
Elyn R. Saks.
imprint
Chicago : University of Chicago Press, c2002.
description
x, 304 p.
ISBN
0226733971 (cloth : alk. paper), 9780226733975 (cloth : alk. paper)
format(s)
Book
More Details
imprint
Chicago : University of Chicago Press, c2002.
isbn
0226733971 (cloth : alk. paper)
9780226733975 (cloth : alk. paper)
restrictions
Licensed for access by U. of T. users.
catalogue key
11908974
 
Includes bibliographical references (p. 257-291) and index.
A Look Inside
Excerpts
Flap Copy
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 problemthat of overinterventionasking 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. Mental health professionals, lawyers, disability rights activists, and anyone who wants to learn more about the way the mentally ill are treatedand ought to be treatedin the United States should read Refusing Care .
Flap Copy
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. Mental health professionals, lawyers, disability rights activists, and anyone who wants to learn more about the way the mentally ill are treated--and ought to be treated--in the United States should read Refusing Care.
Summaries
Main Description
It has been said that how a society treats its least well-off members speaks volumes about its humanity. If so, our treatment of the mentally ill suggests that American society is 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. Focusing on overinterventionist approaches, Refusing Care explores when, if ever, the mentally ill should be treated against their will. Basing her analysis on case and empirical studies, Elyn R. Saks explores dilemmas raised by forced treatment in three contextscivil commitment (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 also would 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. Mental health professionals, lawyers, disability rights activists, and anyone who wants to learn more about the way the mentally ill are treatedand ought to be treatedin the United States should read Refusing Care .
Main Description
It has been said that how a society treats its least well-off members speaks volumes about its humanity. If so, our treatment of the mentally ill suggests that American society is 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. Focusing on overinterventionist approaches, Refusing Care explores when, if ever, the mentally ill should be treated against their will. Basing her analysis on case and empirical studies, Elyn R. Saks explores dilemmas raised by forced treatment in three contexts--civil commitment (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 also would 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. Mental health professionals, lawyers, disability rights activists, and anyone who wants to learn more about the way the mentally ill are treated--and ought to be treated--in the United States should read Refusing Care.
Bowker Data Service Summary
Focusing on overinterventionist approaches, 'Refusing Care' asks when, if ever, the mentally ill should be treated against their will. Saks proposes standards that, as much as possible, should apply equally to non-mentally ill and mentally ill people.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments
Introduction
Doctors and Lawyers: Why Can't We All Just Get Along?
Mental Illness: Making Myths or Genuine Disorders?
Civil Commitment: How Civil?
The Right to Refuse Medication: When Can I Just Say No?
Seclusion: The Path of Least Resistance?
Mechanical Restraints: Loosening the Bonds
Incompetency and Impairment: Choices Made, Choices Denied
Self-Binding: Ulysses at the Mast
Conclusion
Notes
References
Index
Table of Contents provided by Publisher. All Rights Reserved.

This information is provided by a service that aggregates data from review sources and other sources that are often consulted by libraries, and readers. The University does not edit this information and merely includes it as a convenience for users. It does not warrant that reviews are accurate. As with any review users should approach reviews critically and where deemed necessary should consult multiple review sources. Any concerns or questions about particular reviews should be directed to the reviewer and/or publisher.

  link to old catalogue

Report a problem