PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Lessard v. Schmidt”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

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

10 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1975

Rights of the mentally ill: the gulf between theory and reality.

Within the last few years several lawsuits have significantly increased both the procedural and the substantive rights of mental patients; among them are Lessard v. Schmidt, in which the court held that persons facing involuntary civil commitment are entiltled to dueprocess safeguards, and Wyatt v. Stickney and Donaldson v. O'Connor, concerned with the right ot adequate treatment. The author draws on the problems of implementing the landmark decree of Miranda v. Arizona, guaranteeing the rights of criminal suspects, in discussing the difficulties of translating rights promulgated in the courts into reality. He believes that enofrcement of patients' rights depends not on the law alone but also on the sensitivity and good faith of mental health workers.

Attitude of Health Personnel↗
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↗