Abstract
The evidence adduced in the past for the proposition that civil commitment hearings are deleterious to mental patients was largely theoretical, occasionally supported by anecdotes. The criticism seems to have reflected the general antipathy of doctors for everything legal. In fact, the relationship of the involuntarily committed patient to his attorney and numerous aspects of the commitment process contain considerable potential for therapeutic effects. Properly used, the process should be adjunctive to the hospital's function rather than an impediment to it.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.