Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-wxhwt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-10T17:23:55.300Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Innovative Statutory Approaches to Civil Commitment: An Overview and Critique

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2021

Daniel W. Shuman
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The study of society's approach to civil commitment of the mentally ill is made particularly interesting by the strength of the values it finds in conflict. On one plane, “good” or “moral” people are supposed to provide care for those unable to care for themselves. The capacity to consider the needs of others helps define our “humanness.” In this context, this value manifests itself in the attempt to provide mental health care for those unable, because of their illness, to provide it for themselves.

On another plane, however, the oppression that drove many to immigrate to America and that resulted in our own revolution has left us with an abiding fear of governmental limitations on individual autonomy. Cries of totalitarianism and “big brotherism” often accompany governmental attempts to restrict that autonomy. In this context, this value manifests itself in the attempt to permit individuals to choose whether to receive mental health care.

Type
Article
Information
Law, Medicine and Healthcare , Volume 13 , Issue 6 , December 1985 , pp. 284 - 289
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

See Appelbaum, P., Standards for Civil Commitment: A Critical Review of Empirical Research, International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 7(2): 133 (1984).Google ScholarPubMed
Bell, L.V., Treating the Mentally Ill: From Colonial Times to the Present (Praeger, New York, 1980), at 3.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, and Kemp, , The Evolution of Commitment Laws in the Nineteenth Century, Law and Human Behavior 6: 343, 345 (1982).Google ScholarPubMed
New York Laws of 1788 (ch. 31) permitted confinement of the “furiously madd” if their relatives could not care for them and they were “so far disordered in their senses that they may be dangerous to be permitted to go abroad.” Connecticut's 1824 legislation on the subject authorized confinement of the dangerous mentally ill. Schwartz, Liberty and Autonomy Versus Confinement and Commitment, The History of Legal Intervention in Colonial Connecticut Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1983: 461, 488 (1983).Google Scholar
In re Oakes, 8 Law Rep. 122 (Mass. 1845).Google Scholar
Rothman, D.J., The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in the New Republic (Little, Brown, Boston, 1971), at 128–29.Google Scholar
Bell, , supra note 3, at 47.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, and Kemp, , supra note 4, at 344.Google Scholar
Grob, G., Mental Illness in American Society, 1875–1940 (1983), at 10.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Ariz. Rev. Stat., Penal ©2768 (1901) permitting confinement in the territorial insane asylum only when a court found “that by reason of his or her insanity he or she be in danger, if at liberty, of injuring himself or herself, or the person or property of others.”Google Scholar
Dershowitz, A., The Origins of Preventive Confinement in Anglo-American Law, Part II: The American Experience, University of Cincinnati Law Review 43(4): 808 (Fall 1974).Google Scholar
Curran, W.J., Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill, North Carolina Law Review 31(2): 274, 286–89 (February 1953); Comment, Analysis of Legal and Medical Considerations in Commitment of Mentally Ill, Yale Law Review 56(7): 1178 (August 1947).Google Scholar
Weihofen, H. Overholser, W., Commitment of the Mentally Ill, Texas Law Review 24(3): 307, 338 (April 1946).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 340, 343.Google Scholar
In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1 (1967).Google Scholar
See State ex rel Hawks and Lazaro, 202 S.E.2d 109 (W. Va. 1974).Google Scholar
See Heryford v. Parker, 396 F.2d 393 (10th Cir. 1968).Google Scholar
Shuman, D.W., The Road to Bedlam: Evidentiary Guideposts in Civil Commitment Proceedings, Notre Dame Lawyer 55(1): 53–54 (October 1979).Google Scholar
See Lynch v. Baxley, 386 F. Supp. 378 (M.D. Ala. 1974).Google Scholar
Bell v. Wayne County General Hospital, 384 F. Supp. 1085 (E.D. Mich. 1974).Google Scholar
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).Google Scholar
Stromberg, C.D. Stone, A.A., A Model State Law on Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill, Harvard Journal on Legislation 20(2): 275, 340 (Summer 1983).Google Scholar
Id. at 341.Google Scholar
Id. at 345.Google Scholar
American Bar Foundation, The Mentally Disabled and the Law (ed. Lindman, and McIntyre, ) (1971), at 36.Google Scholar
Beis, State Involuntary Commitment Statutes, Mental Disability Law Reporter 350 (1983).Google Scholar
Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supp. 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972), aff’d sub nom. 503 F.2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974).Google Scholar
See New York State Association for Retarded Children, Inc. v. Rockefeller, 357 F. Supp. 752 (E.D. N.Y. 1973).Google Scholar
Stromberg and Stone, supra note 24, at 277.Google Scholar
See American Psychiatric Task Force, Report 8: Clinical Aspects of the Violent Individual (1974); John Monohan, The Clinical Prediction of Violent Behavior (National Institute of Mental Health, Rockville, Md., 1981).Google Scholar
Brooks, Defining the Dangerousness of the Mentally Ill: Involuntary Civil Commitment in Mentally Abnormal Offenders (ed. Craft, M. and Craft, A.) (1984).Google Scholar
Lessard, supra note 31, at 1094.Google Scholar
O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563, 581-84 (1975) (Burger C.J., conc.); Shuman, D.W., Hegland, K.F., Wexler, D.B., Arizona's Mental Health Services Act: An Overview and an Analysis of Proposed Amendments, Arizona Law Review 19(2): 313, 336 (1977).Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
See Stromberg and Stone, supra note 24.Google Scholar
“Gravely disabled” means a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder: (a) Is in danger of serious physical harm resulting from a failure to provide for his essential human needs of health or safety, or (b) manifests severe deterioration in routine functioning evidenced by repeated and escalating loss of cognitive or volitional control over his or her actions and is not receiving such care as is essential for his or her health or safety. (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §71.05.020[1] [Supp. 1985])Google Scholar
Doe v. Gallinot, 486 F. Supp. 983, 991 (C.D. Cal. 1979); aff’d 657 F.2d 1017 (9th Cir. 1981). Coylar v. Third Judicial District Court, 469 F. Supp. 424, 432 (C.D. Utah 1979).Google Scholar
Stromberg and Stone, supra note 24, at 277–78.Google Scholar
Appelbaum, supra note 1, at 134.Google Scholar
See, e.g., Luckey, J.W. Berman, J.J., Effects of a New Commitment Law on Involuntary Admissions and Service Utilization Patterns, Law and Human Behavior 3(3): 149 (1979); McGarry, Statewide Statistical Impact: Old Statute vs. New Statute, in Civil Commitment and Social Policy: An Evaluation of the Massachusetts Mental Health Reform act of 1970 (ed. Schwitzgehel, Lipsitt, and Lelos) (1981).Google Scholar
See Dix, G.E., Acute Psychiatric Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill in the Metropolis: An Empirical Study, Washington University Law Quarterly 1968(4): 485 (Fall 1968); Wexler, D.B. et al, Special Project: The Administration of Psychiatric Justice: Theory and Practice in Arizona, Arizona Law Review 13(1): 1 (1971).Google Scholar
Munetz, Feedback, Hospital and Community Psychiatry 32: 281 (1981); C.A.B. Warren, Involuntary Commitment for Mental Disorder: The Application of California's Lanterman-Petris-Short Act, Law and Society Review 11(4): 629, 642 (Spring 1977); Zander, Civil Commitment in Wisconsin: The Impact of Lessard v. Schmidt, Wisconsin Law Review 1976(2): 503, 538–49 (1976).Google Scholar
Pierce, G.L. Durham, M.L. Fisher, W.H., The Impact of Broadened Civil Commitment Standards on Admissions to State Mental Hospitals, American Journal of Psychiatry 142(1): 104, 106 (January 1985).Google ScholarPubMed
Stromberg and Stone, supra note 24, at 277.Google Scholar
See Dix, G.E., The 1983 Revision of the Texas Mental Health Code, St. Mary's Law Journal 16(1): 41, 121 (1984).Google ScholarPubMed
See Appelbaum, supra note 1.Google Scholar