Philosophy, Psychiatry, & Psychology

Abstract:

The paper criticizes the prevailing, danger-based involuntary commitment criteria that have characterized U.S. law since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1975 O'Connor v. Donaldson decision. Numerous medical and moral inadequacies are identified in O'Connor-style commitment criteria. It is argued that a treatment-based criterion—derived from the American Psychiatric Association's Model Commitment Law, but a version that disdains reliance on dangerousness to self or others as a ground for commitment—is medically and morally preferable to the prevailing U.S. commitment standard. This treatment-based approach respects competent treatment refusals, but does permit treatable, incompetent individuals to be involuntarily hospitalized for treatment. This approach is defended against possible objections and some of its advantages are identified.