Involuntary Hospitalization: What For and How Long?

Spensley, James; Barter, James T.; Werme, Paul H.; Langsley, Donald G.

doi:10.1176/ajp.131.2.219

Cited by 23 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, although they were hospitalized against their will, in retrospect most had positive feelings about their hospitalization experience (Goove and Fain 1977;Spensley , Edwards, and White 1980). Finally, the duration of involuntary treatment has been shown to be generally brief, and a significant proportion of these patients continue to participate in treatment voluntarily afterwards (Goove and Fain 1977;Spensley , Barterm, and Werner 1974;Tomerlleri, Lakshminarayanam, and Herjanic 1977).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suicide and Civil Commitment

Siegel¹,

Tuckel²

1987

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The contemporary approach to suicide prevention relies primarily on involuntary commitment of the suicidal individual. While there is generally widespread acceptance of the principle of society's right, even its moral obligation, to intervene to prevent a suicide, there is much less agreement concerning the conditions under which such an action should proceed. Most of the debate centers on the widely applied commitment criteria of mental illness and dangerousness to self and others. Questions have also been raised regarding the efficacy of commitment as a preventive measure. In this paper, these controversies are placed in a broader historical context. We examine empirical evidence concerning prevailing commitment criteria and the prophylactic value of involuntary hospitalization, and discuss the appropriateness of our current approach to civil commitment in light of existing data.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Suicide and Civil Commitment

Siegel¹,

Tuckel²

1987

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…But treating professionals apparently do not often recommend change to a less restrictive program prior to ending of commitment. Instead, there are indications that patients usually retain committed status in a hospital setting until one of four events: ( 1 ) treatment and therefore commitment are deemed no longer necessary; (2) commitment is discontinued after patients' failure to return from a pass; (3) commitment is discontinued after they leave without consent of staff; or (4) a "voluntary" inpatient status, which usually entails the stipulation that the person can be required to wait a specified period (e.g., 48 hours) after giving notice before being free to leave, is agreed to essentially as a condition of being freed from commitment (Spensley et al, 1974;Wexler, 1983). Results of this study, specifically the mean number of facilities used by AIP-BMH as well as AOP-BMH (3.9 and 6.6, respectively), suggest that change of treatment setting before ending commitment may be a more common occurrence in Nebraska than in many other states.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Recent reform of commitment laws has been paralleled by an increase in studies of individuals committed under those newer laws (Beck, Houge, Fraps, Perry, & Fenstermaker, 1984;Faulkner, Bloom, & Kundall-Stanley, 1982;Faulkner, Bloom, Rosnick, & Stern, 1983;LeBuffe, Granger, & Wise, 1979;Miller & Fiddleman, 1983;Rothman & Dubin, 1982; Rubin & Mills, 1983; Sata & Goldenberg, 1977;Spensley, Barter, Werme, & Langsley, 1974;Tomeller, Lakshminarayanan, & Herjanic, 1977;Zewerling, Karasu, Plutchik, & Kellerman, 1975). With few exceptions (e.g., Jones, Parlour, & Badger, 1982;LaWall, 1982), attention has been confined to individuals committed to inpatient mental hospital settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Use of outpatient treatment during civil commitment: Law and practice in Nebraska

Wood

Swanson

1985

J Clin Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Involuntary psychiatric treatment provided under civil commitment has been the subject of intense debate in the medical literature as well as in the media [1][2][3]. A patient's right to refuse treatment (i.e.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Involuntary Treatment of Alcohol-Dependent Patients: A Study of 17 Consecutive Cases of Civil Commitment

Bourquin-Tièche

Besson²,

Lambert³

et al. 2001

Eur Addict Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim: To investigate the baseline and follow-up characteristics of a group of alcohol-dependent patients being treated under civil commitment. Methods: This study involved a cross-sectional comparative analysis of baseline characteristics and a follow-up survey of a group of committed alcoholic patients. The study was undertaken in the Alcohol Unit of a 1,000-bed general and university hospital. The study included 17 consecutive cases of civil commitment (representing 15 patients, of whom 2 were committed twice) and a comparative group of 34 randomly selected age- and sex-matched patients. Baseline characteristics of the cases (at the time of commitment) and of patients from the comparative group were collected from medical records, including sociodemographic data, medical condition, patterns of drinking and number and dates of previous treatments for alcohol-related problems. A structured follow-up interview of the cases provided information on their medical condition, social status, patterns of alcohol use, type and duration of residential treatment as well as their perceptions of commitment. Results: During a 4-year period, our Unit referred 23 cases of alcohol-dependent patients (out of 367) to the Guardianship Authority, requesting civil commitment. On 17 occasions, patients were committed to residential treatment, including 2 patients who underwent commitment on two separate occasions, thus representing a total of 15 different patients. In comparison with age- and sex-matched patients seen at the Unit, the cases were characterized by multiple medical, social and psychological alcohol-related impairments. At the time of follow-up, 14 out of 15 patients were alive, among whom 10 agreed to be interviewed. Eight of these reported complete abstinence, whereas 9 considered their alcohol problem as less severe than before. The average duration of commitment was 29 weeks. The majority of patients retrospectively considered the measure as having been justified and useful. The patients’ satisfaction with the decision to commit was higher among women than among men. Health-related quality of life at the time of follow-up, as assessed by the MOS 36-Item Short Form Health Survey questionnaire, was good on average and better than that usually reported by other cohorts of alcoholics undergoing treatment. Conclusions: The usefulness of residential civil commitment of certain severely impaired alcohol-dependent patients is underscored. This study suggests that civil commitment not only may save the lives of endangered patients but could also be a health-promoting measure that may sometimes allow for recovery from dependence. Unexpectedly, this measure was retrospectively well accepted by many patients, who considered the commitment decision as having been justified and useful.

show abstract

Involuntary Hospitalization: What For and How Long?

Cited by 23 publications

References 3 publications

Suicide and Civil Commitment

Suicide and Civil Commitment

Use of outpatient treatment during civil commitment: Law and practice in Nebraska

Involuntary Treatment of Alcohol-Dependent Patients: A Study of 17 Consecutive Cases of Civil Commitment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About