Author: Radden J.

Source: Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, Volume 10, Number 1, 1 August 2003 , pp. 1-11(11)

Publisher: Australian Academic Press

Abstract:

The philosophical positions known as libertarianism or liberalism, and paternalism or parentalism, in their application to treatment refusals are outlined. The author then discusses recent public policy governing the alleged right to refuse psychotropic medication and draws attention to conceptual issues raised by such a right. These issues include the capacity for rational choice and the way it functions as a criterion in policy about choosing to refuse, the particular set of considerations involved in evaluating the refusal of medication, the category of danger to the self which forms the basis of much recent mental health policy over involuntary treatment, and finally, alternatives to the modernist, rights-based moral and political frameworks undergirding both liberalism and paternalism. These alternatives, deriving from feminist ethics, relational individualism and narrative theories of self, are applied to the challenge of establishing a just and comprehensive policy on forced psychotropic medication.

Document Type: Research article

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1375/132187103322299845

Affiliations: 1: University of Massachusetts, USA

Publication date: 2003-08-01

More about this publication?

• Information for Authors
• Subscribe to this Title
• Terms & Conditions
• Library Recommendation Form
• ingentaconnect is not responsible for the content or availability of external websites

Related content

• In this: publication
• By this: publisher
• In this Subject: Neurology & Psychiatry ,  Psychology ,  Law
• By this author: Radden J.

Website © Publishing Technology. Article copyright remains with the publisher, society or author(s) as specified within the article.

• Terms and conditions
• Privacy policy
• Information for advertisers