The right to refuse treatment in Oregon

A two‐year statewide experience

Sally L. Godard, Joseph Bloom, Mary H. Williams, Larry R. Faulkner

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The right to refuse treatment seems well established for psychiatric patients. Individual states, however, have very different procedures for managing this right and for overriding the refusal. Oregon's administrative procedure for override depends on an evaluation by an independent examining psychiatrist. This article empirically examines the 432 refusals leading to override requests in three Oregon psychiatric institutions in 1983 and 1984. Treatment refusal was found to be a common occurrence in all age groups. Those who refused treatment were seriously ill, unemployed, single individuals with previous psychiatric hospitalizations. Most refused treatment because of denial of their illness or delusional thinking about medication. Most refusals were overridden following the independent psychiatrist's examination. Because of the significant cost of the override procedure to the patient and the mental health system, the authors propose a new procedure which combines parts of the current procedure with a requirement that, at the time of the civil commitment hearing, the judge makes a separate decision as to the patient's competency to make treatment decisions.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)293-304
Number of pages12
JournalBehavioral Sciences and the Law
Volume4
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - 1986

Fingerprint

Patient Rights
Psychiatry
psychiatrist
experience
psychiatric institution
administrative procedure
Treatment Refusal
hospitalization
age group
medication
illness
mental health
Hearing
commitment
Mental Health
Hospitalization
Therapeutics
Age Groups
examination
Costs and Cost Analysis

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Clinical Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Law

Cite this

The right to refuse treatment in Oregon : A two‐year statewide experience. / Godard, Sally L.; Bloom, Joseph; Williams, Mary H.; Faulkner, Larry R.

In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1986, p. 293-304.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Godard, Sally L. ; Bloom, Joseph ; Williams, Mary H. ; Faulkner, Larry R. / The right to refuse treatment in Oregon : A two‐year statewide experience. In: Behavioral Sciences and the Law. 1986 ; Vol. 4, No. 3. pp. 293-304.
@article{c68bb4f492414670b4af56aac6a89f62,
title = "The right to refuse treatment in Oregon: A two‐year statewide experience",
abstract = "The right to refuse treatment seems well established for psychiatric patients. Individual states, however, have very different procedures for managing this right and for overriding the refusal. Oregon's administrative procedure for override depends on an evaluation by an independent examining psychiatrist. This article empirically examines the 432 refusals leading to override requests in three Oregon psychiatric institutions in 1983 and 1984. Treatment refusal was found to be a common occurrence in all age groups. Those who refused treatment were seriously ill, unemployed, single individuals with previous psychiatric hospitalizations. Most refused treatment because of denial of their illness or delusional thinking about medication. Most refusals were overridden following the independent psychiatrist's examination. Because of the significant cost of the override procedure to the patient and the mental health system, the authors propose a new procedure which combines parts of the current procedure with a requirement that, at the time of the civil commitment hearing, the judge makes a separate decision as to the patient's competency to make treatment decisions.",
author = "Godard, {Sally L.} and Joseph Bloom and Williams, {Mary H.} and Faulkner, {Larry R.}",
year = "1986",
doi = "10.1002/bsl.2370040305",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
pages = "293--304",
journal = "Behavioral Sciences and the Law",
issn = "0735-3936",
publisher = "John Wiley and Sons Ltd",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The right to refuse treatment in Oregon

T2 - A two‐year statewide experience

AU - Godard, Sally L.

AU - Bloom, Joseph

AU - Williams, Mary H.

AU - Faulkner, Larry R.

PY - 1986

Y1 - 1986

N2 - The right to refuse treatment seems well established for psychiatric patients. Individual states, however, have very different procedures for managing this right and for overriding the refusal. Oregon's administrative procedure for override depends on an evaluation by an independent examining psychiatrist. This article empirically examines the 432 refusals leading to override requests in three Oregon psychiatric institutions in 1983 and 1984. Treatment refusal was found to be a common occurrence in all age groups. Those who refused treatment were seriously ill, unemployed, single individuals with previous psychiatric hospitalizations. Most refused treatment because of denial of their illness or delusional thinking about medication. Most refusals were overridden following the independent psychiatrist's examination. Because of the significant cost of the override procedure to the patient and the mental health system, the authors propose a new procedure which combines parts of the current procedure with a requirement that, at the time of the civil commitment hearing, the judge makes a separate decision as to the patient's competency to make treatment decisions.

AB - The right to refuse treatment seems well established for psychiatric patients. Individual states, however, have very different procedures for managing this right and for overriding the refusal. Oregon's administrative procedure for override depends on an evaluation by an independent examining psychiatrist. This article empirically examines the 432 refusals leading to override requests in three Oregon psychiatric institutions in 1983 and 1984. Treatment refusal was found to be a common occurrence in all age groups. Those who refused treatment were seriously ill, unemployed, single individuals with previous psychiatric hospitalizations. Most refused treatment because of denial of their illness or delusional thinking about medication. Most refusals were overridden following the independent psychiatrist's examination. Because of the significant cost of the override procedure to the patient and the mental health system, the authors propose a new procedure which combines parts of the current procedure with a requirement that, at the time of the civil commitment hearing, the judge makes a separate decision as to the patient's competency to make treatment decisions.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84984240263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84984240263&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1002/bsl.2370040305

DO - 10.1002/bsl.2370040305

M3 - Article

VL - 4

SP - 293

EP - 304

JO - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

JF - Behavioral Sciences and the Law

SN - 0735-3936

IS - 3

ER -