Although Corcoran concludes that the right to effective treatment does not exist, other legal
remedies, particularly those based on fiduciary obligations, may ensure the opportunity for
chents to choose the optimum intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Archibald v. Act III Arabian, 755 S.W.2d 94 (1985).
2.
Cloward, R., & Epstein, I. (1965). Private social welfare's disengagement from the poor. Proceedings of the Annual Social Work Day Institute, School of Social Welfare, New York State University, Buffalo, New York.
3.
Horak v. Biris, 474 N.E.2d 13 (1985).
4.
Jaffee v. Redmond, 116 S.Ct. 1923 (1996).
5.
Katz, R. (1986). In the shadow of the poorhouse. New York: Basic Books.
6.
Kirk, S.A. (Ed.). (1997). Book forum: The scientist practitioner. Social Work Research, 29, 61-117.
7.
Klerman, G. (1990). The psychiatric patient's right to effective treatment: Implications of Osherhoff v. Chestnut Lodge. American Journal of Psychiatry,147, 409-418.
8.
Kutchins, H. (1991). The fiduciary relationship: The legal basis for social workers' responsibilities to clients. Social Work, 37, 106-113.
9.
O'Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).
10.
Roe et al. v. Catholic Social Services, 588 N.E.2d 354 (1992).
11.
Specht, H., & Courtney, M. (1994). Unfaithful angels. New York : Free Press.
