A comparison of commitment and recommitment hearings:

Parry, Charles; Turkheimer, Eric; Hundley, P. L.

doi:10.1016/0160-2527(92)90026-w

Cited by 4 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Many statutes require that patients be treated in the least restrictive alternative, but provide no means of establishing the presence or absence of LRAs. Other states, such as Virginia, do require investigations of LRAs, but our investigation of civil commitment procedures in one Virginia hospital (C. D. H. Parry et al, in press) showed that the requirement was completely ignored.…”

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In any case, grave disability appears to be the most frequent basis for civil commitment. A review of seven studies, conducted in California, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Washington state (Durham & La Fond, 1985; Ehrenreich et al, 1982; C. W. Lidz & E. P. Mulvey, personal communication, March 1991; Morris, 1988; C. D. H. Parry, Turkheimer, & Hundley, in press; Warren, 1977; Yesavage, Werner, Becker, & Mills, 1982), indicated that a median of 78% of respondents in commitment hearings are committed on the basis of grave disability, both with and without an additional finding of danger to self or others.…”

Section: Why the Gap?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We have recently completed a prospective study of 190 initial and 184 recommitment hearings at a large state hospital in Virginia, covering a rural and urban catchment area with a population of more than 2,000,000 (C. D. H. Parry et al, in press; C.…”

Section: Why the Gap?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings.

Turkheimer¹,

Parry²

1992

American Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The failure of civil commitment procedures to meet statutory requirements is one of the more reliable findings in the applied social sciences. Most states now require specific legal procedures and behavioral standards for involuntary hospitalization. Nonetheless, empirical studies have demonstrated that commitment hearings are rarely adversarial and clinical concerns continue to take precedence over legal issues. These findings are analyzed in the context of three related issues: the grounds for commitment that are used in civil commitment hearings, the particular difficulties of recommitment hearings, and the shortcomings of the national policy of deinstitutionalization. The authors conclude that a primary cause of the gap between legal standards and actual practice is the absence of viable, less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment.

show abstract

Section: Recommendationsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Why the Gap?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings.

Turkheimer¹,

Parry²

1992

American Psychologist

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Dangerousness and disability as predictors of psychiatric patients' legal status

Pokorny¹,

Shull

Nicholson

1999

Behav. Sci. Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a sample of patients admitted to two state psychiatric facilities, discriminant analyses were used to predict (1) legal status at admission (voluntary versus emergency detention), and (2) the subsequent decision to commit patients initially admitted under an order of emergency detention (court commitment versus release). Measures of preadmission dangerousness, followed by variables reflecting degree of disability or impairment, accounted for most of the variance in legal status at admission. Personal resources and demographic characteristics added little to the discrimination. Measures of disability accounted for most of the variance in the later decision to commit, whereas indices of dangerousness, personal resources, and demographics added little to discrimination of discharged and court‐committed patients. These findings reflect the gap between legal standards and the practice of civil commitment, and support the argument that degree of disability plays a more important role than dangerousness in decisions to extend the hospitalization of involuntary patients. Copyright © 1999 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

show abstract

Outpatient commitment and procedural due process

Player

2015

International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A comparison of commitment and recommitment hearings:

Cited by 4 publications

References 31 publications

Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings.

Why the gap? Practice and policy in civil commitment hearings.

Dangerousness and disability as predictors of psychiatric patients' legal status

Outpatient commitment and procedural due process

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About