No means no, or does it?: A comparative study of the right to refuse treatment in a psychiatric institution

Around the world, people with mental disabilities are subject to many types of behavioral therapies against their will, including medications and restraints. This is especially true of people who are institutionalized. These intrusions are in violation of fundamental international human rights princ...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inInternational journal of legal information Vol. 44; no. 2; pp. 137 - 172
Main Author Gallagher, Mehgan
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Washington Cambridge University Press 01.07.2016
Subjects
Civil rights
Mental illness
Patient refusal of treatment
Patients
People with mental disabilities
Psychiatric clinics
Treatment
UNITED STATES
KENYA
BRAZIL
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Around the world, people with mental disabilities are subject to many types of behavioral therapies against their will, including medications and restraints. This is especially true of people who are institutionalized. These intrusions are in violation of fundamental international human rights principles. People with mental disabilities are often stripped of many of their basic rights, including the right to determine what is done to their bodies. This article compares the prevailing law on the right to refuse treatment for people with mental disabilities in an institutional setting in three different nations on three continents, specifically in the United States, Kenya, and Brazil.
Bibliography:Informit, Melbourne (Vic)
International Journal of Legal Information, Vol. 44, No. 2, Aug 2016, 137-172
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-General Information-1
content type line 14
ISSN:0731-1265
2331-4117
DOI:10.1017/jli.2016.16