Main description:

Why do present-day mental health professionals practice the way that they do? Over the past fifty years, a number of landmark court holdings have changed such basic principles as what material is confidential, how civil commitment and involuntary treatment are conducted, and when a therapist has a duty to protect the public from a dangerous patient. Unlike most legal texts, this volume explores these complex principles through the human stories of the litigants involved.

Contents:

Introduction; 1. Raising American standards in the treatment of persons with mental illness Wyatt vs. Stickney (1972) Susan Hatters Friedman; 2. The limits of hospitalization after commitment O'Connor vs. Donaldson (1975) Deborah Giorgi-Guarnieri; 3. Who speaks for the children? Parham vs. J. L & J. R. (1979) Peter Ash; 4. The right to refuse treatment Rogers vs. Commissioner of Department of Mental Health (1983) Alec Buchanan; 5. The least restrictive alternative Olmstead vs. L. C. & E. W. (1999) Megan Testa; 6. Informed consent Canterbury vs. Spence (1972) Debra A. Pinals; 7. End of life decision making Cruzan vs. Director, Missouri Department of Health (1990) Richard Martinez; 8. Prohibiting psychiatrist-patient sex Roy vs. Hartogs (1976) Jacob M. Appel; 9. Psychotherapist-patient privilege Jaffee vs. Redmond (1996) Jacob M. Appel; 10. Protecting others from dangerous patients Tarasoff vs. Regents of the University of California (1976) Phillip J. Resnick; 11. The insanity defense US vs. Hinckley (1982) Alan W. Newman; Conclusion; Index.