BulfinchT., Mythology (Dell Books, New York, N.Y.) (1959) at 89.
2.
See, e.g., In re Quinlan, 348 A.2d 801, 819 (N.J. Super. Ct. Chan. D.V. 1975); mod. rem, 355 A.2d 647 (NJ 1976).
3.
See, e.g., In re Spring, 405 N.E.2d 115 (Mass. 1980); In re Severns, 425 A.2d 156, 159 (Del. 1980); Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417 (Mass. 1977).
4.
GutheilT.G.AppelbaumP.S., Clinical Handbook of Psychiatry and the Law (McGraw-Hill, New York, N.Y.) (1982) at 210–52.
5.
GutheilT.G.AppelbaumP.S., Substituted Judgment: Best Interests in Disguise?Hastings Center Report13(3): 8–11 (June 1983).
6.
Id. at 9–11.
7.
GutheilT.G.AppelbaumP.S., “Mind Control,” “Synthetic Sanity,” “Artificial Competence,” and Genuine Confusion: Legally Relevant Effects of Antipsychotic Medications, Hofstra Law Review12: 77–120 (1983).
8.
Id.
9.
In re Storar, 420 N.E.2d 64 (N.Y. 1981); AnnasG. J., The Case of Mary Hier: When Substituted Judgment Becomes Sleight of Hand, Hastings Center Report14(4): 23–25 (August 1984).
10.
See generally FrankJ., Law and the Modern Mind (Anchor Books, New York, N.Y.) (1963).
11.
For a similar suggestion, see President's Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research, Making Health Care Decisions: The Ethical and Legal Implications of Informed Consent in the Patient-Practtooner Relationship (U.S. Gov't Printing Ofc., Washington, D.C.) (1982) at 180–81.