Abstract
In this article, the author asserts that the right of involuntarily confined mental patients to refuse psychiatric treatment is both legally sound and medically desirable. This right is viewed as one example of the broader right of any patient to deny his consent to proposed medical treatment. The author critiques two devices that are utilized to subvert the right of mental patients to refuse psychiatric treatment: (1) a competency test that equates the patient's competence with his willingness to accept the psychiatrist's proposed therapy, and (2) the appointment of guardians to act as substitute decision-makers for civil and criminal patients who have not been declared incompetent to make treatment decisions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.