The case is presented of a young and violent chronic schizophrenic patient whose symptoms respond to antipsychotic medication but who was recorded, at a time when he was deemed competent, as expressing a wish that he should not be given antipsychotic treatment. Under the present usage of the Ontario Mental Health Act, substitute consent givers are bound by such a “prior competent wish” and this patient must now be considered one of a growing group of “legally untreatable” psychotic patients.
References
1.
BloomH.Mental health legislation: an overview for the general practitioner.Ont Med Rev1991; 8: 21,22,24,25,27.
2.
HoffmanB.F., SrinivasanJ.A study of competence to consent to treatment in a psychiatric hospital.Can J Psychiatry1992; 37(3): 179–182.
3.
ManchandaR., FernandoM.L.D., GalbraithD.A.Consent to treat: clinical and legal implications.Can J Psychiatry1989; 34(1): 60–62.
4.
JaychukG., NanchandaR., GalbraithD.A.Consent to treatment: loophole in the Ontario Mental Health Act.Can J Psychiatry1991; 36(6): 594–596.
5.
RappM.S.Mandatory treatment for bipolar illness?(letter) Can J Psychiatry1991; 36(8): 467.
6.
LambH.R.Lessons learned from deinstitutionalisation in the US.Br J Psychiatry1993; 162: 587–592.
7.
ToddN.A., BennieE.H., CooperA.F.Trends in recruitment of new long-stay male schizophrenics.Psychiatr Bull1990; 14: 210–212.
8.
Sawatsky v Norris and St. Thomas Psychiatry Hospital1992, 10 O.R.(3d, 67 (Gen. Div.).
9.
Fleming v Reid; Fleming v Gallagher, 1991, 4 O.R. (3d) 74.
10.
O'GradyT.Community psychiatry — a changing locus of rejection?Perspect Biol Med1988; 31: 324–340.
11.
BagbyR.M., ThompsonJ.S., DickensS.E.Decision making in psychiatric civil commitment: an experimental analysis.Am J Psychiatry1991; 148: 28–33.
