Psychiatrists' evaluations of emergency involuntary hospitalization
| Autor: | Ronald M. Wintrob, Glenn Affleck, Michael A. Peszke |
|---|---|
| Jazyk: | angličtina |
| Rok vydání: | 1980 |
| Předmět: |
medicine.medical_specialty
Abridgement Attitude of Health Personnel lcsh:RC435-571 MEDLINE Forensic Psychiatry Psychiatry and Mental health Clinical Psychology Constitutionality Statutory law Forensic psychiatry Surveys and Questionnaires lcsh:Psychiatry medicine Spite Commitment of Mentally Ill Humans Generalizability theory Quality of care Psychology Psychiatry |
| Zdroj: | Comprehensive Psychiatry, Vol 21, Iss 1, Pp 13-21 (1980) |
| Popis: | Debate continues over the ethics, constitutionality, and therapeutic benefit of emergency involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill (EIH). Critics of EIH have been concerned not only with the adequacy of treatment afforded to patients so hospitalized, but also with the fundamental abridgement of liberties they regard as inherent in the practice itself. 1,2 Whereas most defenders of EIH admit that the quality of care received by such patients is far from adequate in many state hospitals, they continue to argue the case for EIH as a necessary and indeed humane management option for the treatment of gravely disabled and/or dangerous persons. 3 Much of the debate over EIH has come from persons whose claim to speak for organized psychiatry is in doubt. Surprisingly, in spite of the social significance of and professional interest in the controversy, little is known about the attitudes of the broad spectrum of practicing psychiatrists. What little data exist suggest that psychiatrists do support the continued availability of EIH. In an interview study of 30 hospital staff psychiatrists, Kumasaka and Stokes 4 reported that approximately 80% regarded this option as indispensable in psychiatric practice. The reliability and generalizability of such data must be ascertained through study of larger and more representative groups of practicing psychiatrists. Whether their views are representative of the range of editorial opinion expressed about EIH remains uncertain, as does the potential differentiation of opinion across the subdisciplines of psychiatric practice. In an effort to address these questions, this paper presents findings of a survey of psychiatrists' evaluations of EIH, both in principle and in practice. Data were gathered from psychiatrists practicing in Connecticut and Washington, D.C., to determine the generalizability of attitudes across two jurisdictions that differ in statutory criteria and procedures for EIH. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|