Resolving Hospital Conflicts: A Study on Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Abstract

In recently ruling that psychiatric patients' right to refuse treatment was Constitutionally protected, the U.S. Supreme Court sought to protect this right by mandating procedural protections for it. I conducted a study of patients' perceptions of the fairness of disputing norms compared with disputing law in psychiatric hospitals. Using the psychological theory of procedural justice, I collected data on mental patients' perceptions of the fairness of dispute resolution procedures used by nurses compared with procedures legislatively imposed, court sanctioned, and used by doctors. I found that patients perceived disputing norm processes utilized by nurses, indigenous to hospital culture, to be fairer than disputing law procedures utilized by psychiatrists to resolve treatment disputes. This is contrary to the goal of the Supreme Court in ruling in favor of treatment refusal and imposing disputing law on mental hospitals.