Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Addington v. Texas”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

18 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1989

The role of Addington v Texas on involuntary civil commitment.

The United States Supreme Court in 1979 set the standard for involuntary commitment. This decision, styled Addington v Texas, raised the burden of proof required to commit persons from the usual civil burden of proof of "preponderance of the evidence" to "clear and convincing" evidence. There was no reduction in the rates of commitment as a result of the decision. The proportion of patients committed in Texas grew in almost linear fashion during the years 1972-1986. Various economic, sociological, and treatment factors may have more influence on commitment of patients than does a court decision.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed1980

Mental health commitment: the state of the debate, 1980.

This overview of recent mental health commitment litigation and statutes begins with the 1972 decision by a federal district court in Wisconsin that the state's procedures for commitment were constitutionally defective; the case, Lessard v. Schmidt, was a bellwether for the decade. By 1979 three major mental health cases concerning civil commitment reached and were decided by the U.S. Supreme Court--O'Connor v. Donaldson, Addington v. Texas, and Parbam v. J. R. The author reviews the impact of changing standards and procedures on commitment and discusses in some detail the Addington and Parbam cases. He feels that one lesson of those cases is that the positions of the main disputants in the commitment controversy--legal advocates and beleaguered professional--must be compromised. He also discusses the logical culmination of the continuing controversy between law and psychiatry about civil commitment: the committed patient's right to refuse customary treatment.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed1979

New develpments in civil commitment of the mentally ill. Impact for patient, family, and psychiatrist.

In deciding Addington vs Texas the US Supreme Court established "clear and convincing evidence" as the standard of proof necessary for civil commitment of the mentally ill rather than the criminal standard, "beyond a reasonable doubt." This decision has major implications for the mentally ill person, the family, and the psychiatrist. The mentally ill person is returned to the role of patient. The family is given aid in their dilemma of coping with their psychotic member. The psychiatrist is seen as helper rather than jailer.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed1980

Right to treatment.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed1984

The Supreme Court looks at psychiatry.

An analysis of the attitudes of the U.S. Supreme Court toward psychiatry, as expressed in the Court's major opinions on mental health law from 1975 to 1983, reveals significant discrepancies from case to case. The explanation for these puzzling shifts in attitude lies outside the realm of mental health law, in the justices ' aversion to judicial involvement in professional decision making. A close examination of the cases demonstrates the Court's willingness to alter its rhetoric about psychiatry to support this overriding end. Psychiatrists' understanding of the Court and advocacy for their own and their patients' interests must take this broader issue into account.

Adult↗
PubMed1982

Supreme Court decisions on mental health: a review.

Since the late 1960s mental health advocates have filed numerous lawsuits against mental health institutions in an effort to narrow the standards for civil commitment, improve the care of patients, and define patients' rights. While many of the lawsuits were successful in attaining these goals at the district and appellate court levels, review by the Supreme Court generally has resulted in decisions blunting the lower court rulings. The high court has rejected broadly worded lower court decisions on commitment laws, standards of proof in commitment hearings, and patients' rights. The court also has upheld the traditional reliance on decision-making by medical professionals. The author describes a number of these cases and their decisions and concludes that cases now before the Supreme Court very likely will result in decisions that strike a balance between the needs of the patients and those of treatment staff.

Adult↗
PubMed2002

A population at risk: civil commitment of substance abusers after Kansas v. Hendricks.

In its 1997 decision, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court radically changed the face of civil commitment. In finding the Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act constitutional, the Court liberalized the first constitutional requirement for involuntary commitment from "mental illness" to a much broader "mental abnormality" standard, without correspondingly restricting the second requirement of dangerousness. The decision essentially authorizes states to civilly commit a broad range of individuals without sufficient due process protections. This Comment explores the possibilities for expansion of civil commitment in the wake of Hendricks. It argues that the holding was unjustifiably broad, focusing in particular on the potential danger facing substance abusers. In conclusion, it offers several suggestions for mitigating the potential misuse of this dangerous precedent.

Civil Rights↗