Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Rogers v. Okin”

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.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1980

Rogers v. Okin.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed1984

Rogers v. Okin.

Explore the source record for details and available documents.

Civil Rights↗
PubMed1981

Incompetence to refuse treatment: a necessary condition for civil commitment.

The recent U.S. District Court decision in A.E. and R.R. v. Mitchell held that psychiatric patients who are civilly committed under the Utah statute have no constitutional right to refuse treatment for the mental illness that led to their commitment. This unique law incorporates a judicial determination of competency to refuse treatment at the time of the commitment hearing and thus circumvents the objection to involuntary treatment raised in Rogers v. Okin. A number of psychiatrists have urged the use of this determination of competency, and recently the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held it to be the sine qua non for the state's use of parens patriae power in compelling committed patients to accept neuroleptic medication.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed1980

The right to refuse psychiatric treatment: some legal and ethical considerations.

The paper addresses some of the ethical and legal issues involving the rights of psychiatric patients to refuse treatment. Particular attention is focused on two recently decided cases--Rogers v. Okins, and Rennie v. Klein--that deal with the rights of involuntarily committed patients to refuse psychotropic medications. Both cases approach this issue in different ways, but inevitably point to some very complicated philosophical concepts such as the meaning of self-determination, autonomy and identity of personhood, especially as these concepts are applied to mentally ill patients.

Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders↗
PubMed1985

Right to refuse treatment with psychotropic medication.

The law regarding refusal of psychiatric patients to take psychotropic medication is reviewed. The law in this area is traced through its evolution beginning in the 1960s when failure to administer medication to psychiatric patients was considered mistreatment of the patient. The legal basis for forcible administration of drugs is reviewed, and a discussion of cases in which patients refused to accept treatment on religious grounds is presented. When children are involved, the courts are generally in accord that the parents' right to freedom of religion ends where the child's right to life begins or when there is a threat to public health and safety. In cases involving adults, without a threat to public health or safety, relevant opinions rule that medical treatment should not be ordered against the patient's religious beliefs because it would constitute a violation of the First Amendment. Two leading cases involving the forcible administration of medication, Rennie v. Klein and Rogers v. Okin, held that administration should be limited to emergency situations when there is substantial risk of injury to the patient or others in the hospital. The Supreme Court made it clear that the right to refuse must be derived from state law, not from the federal Constitution, apparently giving health-care professionals broad leeway in exercising professional judgment in this area.

Humans↗
PubMed1981

The right to refuse treatment: why psychiatrists should and can make it work.

There is a right to refuse treatment and this right already exists in the legal doctrine of informed consent. The basic legal justification for overcoming this right is the incompetence of the patient. Incompetence is also the central consideration in overcoming any constitutional right to refuse treatment. The constitutional theories of the right to refuse treatment are briefly presented and their implementation in different recent decisions is considered. A distinction is made between the requirement of proving incompetency and the requirement of appointing a neutral party as arbiter for incompetent patients. A recent constitutional ruling that recognizes this distinction and permits psychiatrists rather than neutral arbiters to make treatment decisions for patients is discussed as a model that should be acceptable to psychiatry.

Forensic Psychiatry↗