Book contents
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Raising American Standards in the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness
- 3 The Limits of Hospitalization after Commitment
- 4 Who Speaks for the Children?
- 5 The Right to Refuse Treatment
- 6 The Least Restrictive Alternative
- 7 Informed Consent
- 8 The Right to Die and End-of-Life Decision-Making
- 9 Prohibiting Psychiatrist–Patient Sex
- 10 Psychotherapist–Patient Privilege
- 11 Protecting Others from Dangerous Patients
- 12 The Insanity Defense
- 13 Conclusion
- Index
- References
8 - The Right to Die and End-of-Life Decision-Making
Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990)
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 February 2019
Edited by
Book contents
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- From Courtroom to Clinic
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Raising American Standards in the Treatment of Persons with Mental Illness
- 3 The Limits of Hospitalization after Commitment
- 4 Who Speaks for the Children?
- 5 The Right to Refuse Treatment
- 6 The Least Restrictive Alternative
- 7 Informed Consent
- 8 The Right to Die and End-of-Life Decision-Making
- 9 Prohibiting Psychiatrist–Patient Sex
- 10 Psychotherapist–Patient Privilege
- 11 Protecting Others from Dangerous Patients
- 12 The Insanity Defense
- 13 Conclusion
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- From Courtroom to ClinicLegal Cases that Changed Mental Health Treatment, pp. 84 - 101Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
4.Personal communication with Mr. Colby in November 2010Google Scholar
6.Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospital, 211 N.Y. 125, 129–130, 105 N.E. 92, 93 (1914)Google Scholar
7.President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research: Deciding to forego life-sustaining treatment: A report on the ethical, medical, legal issues in treatment decisions, Library of Congress, March 1983. Available at https://repository.library.georgetown.edu/bitstream/handle/10822/559344/deciding_to_forego_tx.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y Accessed Jan 30, 2018Google Scholar
8.AMA Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs: Witholding or Withdrawing Life-Sustaining Treatment. Available at www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/withholding-or-withdrawing-life-sustaining-treatment Accessed Jan 30, 2018Google Scholar
9.Elizabeth Bouvia v. Superior Court of California, 179 Cal. App. 3d 1127, 225 Cal. Rptr 297 (1986)Google Scholar
11.Meisel, A, Cerminara, KL: The Right to Die: The Law of End-of-Life Decisionmaking (3rd ed.). Frederick, MD: Aspen Publishers, 2004Google Scholar