The Alabama “right to treatment” case: An opportunity not to be missed
- 14 Downloads
Recent pessimistic criticism of right to treatment decisions is unwarranted. The developing law contains a great deal of flexibility, and this can be creatively utilized to secure resources for communitybased services. Courts' emphasis on the physical framework of care is an intentional effort to avoid interfering with program decisions and thus represents a reaffirmation of confidence that professionals can, if provided adequate resources, be relied on to make program decisions. Time should not be spent decrying the effects of an undesirable development of right to treatment law, but rather in formulating and stimulating development of the law in a manner consistent with current trends in the delivery of services.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- California Legislature, Senate Select Committee on Proposed Phaseout of State Hospital Services.Final report. Sacramento: California Senate, 1974.Google Scholar
- Kellam, S. G., Goldberg, S. C., Schooler, N. R., Berman, A., & Shmelzer, J. L. Ward atmosphere and outcome of treatment of acute schizophrenia,journal of Psychiatric Residency, 1967,5, 145–163.Google Scholar
- O'Conner v. Donaldson.Supreme Court Reporter. Vol. 95, p. 2486 (United States Supreme Court, 1975).Google Scholar
- Wyatt v. Aderholt.Federal Reporter. 2nd Series, Vol. 503, p. 1305 (5th Circuit, 1974).Google Scholar
- Wyatt v. Stickney.Federal Supplement. Vol. 344, p. 373 (Middle District of Alabama, 1972).Google Scholar
- Wyatt V. Stickney Stickney Looks Back.Psychiatric News, October 17, 1973, 23.Google Scholar