In Coreoran's discussion of the legal basis for a possible right to effective treatment, the primary
ground for action he cites is that of negligence. This article concludes that until the profession
can reach consensus as to what constitutes the proper standard of care, a debate about the right
to effective treatment is premature.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Blum, J.D. (1996). The evolution of physician credentialing into managed care selective contracting. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 22, 173-203.
2.
Cohen, R.J., & Mariano, W.E. (1982). Legal guidebook in mental health. New York: Free Press.
3.
Department of Health & Rehabilitative Services v. BJM, 656 So.2d 906 (Fla. 1995).
4.
Gottlieb, A. (1997, January/February). Crisis of consciousness. Utne Reader, 45-48, 106-109.
5.
Hampton, L.P. (1984). Notes—Malpractice in psychotherapy: Is there a relevant standard of care? Case Western Reserve Law Review , 35, 251-281.
6.
Kilcullen, J.K. (1996). Groping for the reins: ERISA, HMO malpractice, and enterprise liability. American Journal of Law and Medicine , 22, 7-50.
7.
Simon, R.I. (1987). Clinical psychiatry and the law. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.
8.
Smith, S.R. (1991). Mental health malpractice in the 1990s. Houston Law Review, 28, 209-282.
9.
Woods, M.E. & Hollis, F. (1990). Casework (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
