Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Civil commitment reform: Context and consequences

  • Articles
  • Published:
Psychiatric Quarterly Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Laws and policies governing the care and treatment of the mentally ill are in part shaped by the sociopolitical climate in which they are formulated, and their outcomes are similarly shaped by the context in which they occur. Civil commitment laws were narrowed in a liberal era but later broadened in response both to the outcome of the initial reform and the trend toward social and fiscal conservatism which emerged in the late 1970s and 1980s. This study, which reports on the evolution of commitment law in the state of Washington, indicates that while recent changes in these laws mandate greater use of state hospitals, the retention of the procedural safeguards set in place by the initial reform coupled with limitations on resources available to state mental health systems will prevent a return to the state hospital as it appeared prior to the deinstitutionalization movement. These factors may promote the search for non-institutional alternatives, such as efforts underway in Washington and elsewhere to implement civil commitment of community-based services.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Morrissey JP, Goldman, HH: Cycles of reform in the care of the chronically mentally ill.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 35: 785–793, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Meyerson D: Does history have to repeat itself? A study of reforms at the Worcester State Hospital. Worcester, MA, Worcester State Hospital, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Bachrach L:Deinstitutionalization: An Analytical Review and Sociological Perspective. Rockville, MD, National Institute of Mental Health, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Morrissey JP: Deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill: processes, outcomes and new directions. In Gove W (ed.):Deviance and Mental Illness. Beverly Hills, CA, Sage Publications, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lerman P:Deinstitutionalization and the Welfare State. New Brunswick, New Jersey, Rutgers University Press, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Barton R:Institutional Neurosis. Bristol, England, Wright, 1959.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Wing J: Institutionalism in mental hospitals.Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology 1: 38–51, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Program Committee on Mental Health of the American Public Health Association.Mental Disorder: A Guide to Control Methods. New York, American Public Health Association, 1964.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Goffman E:Asylums. Garden City, New York, Doubleday, Anchor Books, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Gruenberg E, Archer J: Abandonment of responsibility for the seriously mentally ill.Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly/Health and Society 57: 485–506, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Scull A:Decarceration: Community Treatment and the Deviant—A Radical View. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Brill H, Patton R: Analysis of 1955–56 population fall in New York State mental hospitals during the first year of large scale use of tranquilizing drugs.American Journal of Psychiatry 114: 509–517, 1957.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Joint Commission on Mental Illness and Health.Action for Mental Health. New York, Basic Books, 1961.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Starr P:The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York, Basic Books, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Segal S, Aviram V:The Mentally Ill in Community-based Sheltered Care. New York, John Wiley, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Scheff T:Being Mentally Ill: A Sociological Theory. Chicago, Aldine Publishing, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Miller D, Schwartz M: County Larceny Commission Hearings: Some observations of commitments to a state mental hospital.Social Problems 1: 26–35, 1966.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Kutner L: the illusion of due process in commitment proceedings.Northwestern University Law Review 57: 383–399, 1962.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Lake v. Cameron [364 F. 2d 657 (D.C. Cir. 1966)].

  20. Lessard v. Schmidt [349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972)].

  21. Wash. Rev. Code 71.23.010

  22. Wash. Rev. Code 72.23.010.

  23. Stone AA: Overview: the right to treatment—comments on the law and its impact.American Journal of Psychiatry 132: 1125–1134, 1975.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Wanck B: Two decades of involuntary hospitalization legislation.American Journal of Psychiatry 141: 33–38, 1984.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bassuk E, Gerson S: Deinstitutionalization and mental health services.Scientific American 238: 46–53, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Durham ML, Pierce GL: Beyond deinstitutionalization: a commitment law in evolution.Hospital and Community Psychiatry 33: 216–219, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Roth LH: A commitment law for patients, doctors and lawyers.American Journal of Psychiatry 136: 1121–1127, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Morrissey JP, Tessler RC, Farrin L: Being seen but not admitted: a note on some neglected aspects of state hospital deinstitutionalization.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 49: 153–156, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Chu F, Trotter S:The Madness Establishment. New York, Grossman, 1974.

    Google Scholar 

  30. U.S. General Accounting Office. Returning the Mentally Disabled to the Community: Government Needs to do More. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  31. Rabkin J: Dangerousness of discharged mental patients: public beliefs and empirical findings.Psychological Bulletin 77: 221–225, 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Koenig P: The problem that cannot be tranquilized. New York Times Magazine (May 21): 14–17, 1978.

  33. Lamb R:Treating the Long-Term Mentally Ill. San Francisco, Jossey-Bass, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Wash. Rev. Code 71.050.150.

  35. Pierce GL, Durham ML, Fisher WH: The impact of broadened civil commitment standards on admissions to state mental hospitals.American Journal of Psychiatry 142: 104–107, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Pierce GL, Durham ML, Fisher WH: The impact of public policy and publicity on admissions to state mental health hospitals.Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law (forthcoming).

  37. Fleming S: “Shrinks v. Shysters”: The (latest) battle for control of the mentally ill.Law and Human Behavior 6: 355–377, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Pierce GL, Fisher WH, Durham ML: Civil commitment legislation, supply of resources and length of stay.Law, Medicine and Health Care, in press.

  39. National Association of State Mental Health Program Directors (NASMHPD). National Conference of State Legislatures charges that recent “rights and safeguards” in civil commitment process has prompted reinstitutionalization. NASMHPDLegal Issues (Dec. 4) 1985.

  40. Fisher WH, Phillips BF: Length of Stay: Implications for Planning Inpatient Psychiatric Facilities. Boston, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Wyatt v. Stickney, 325 F. Supp. 78 (M.D. Ala. 1971), 334 F. Supp. 1341 (M.D. Ala. 1971), 334 F. Supp. 373, 387 (M.D. Ala. 1972), aff'd in part, remanded in part, reserved in part sub. nom.Wyatt v. Anderholt, 503 F. 2d 1305 (5th Cir. 1974).

  42. Rubin J:Law, Economics and Mental Health. Lexington, MA, Lexington Books, 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Keilitz I, Hale T: State statutes governing involuntary outpatient civil commitment.Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter 9: 378–379, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. the Division of Policy and Planning, Massachusetts Department of Mental Health, Boston, MA

    William H. Fisher Ph.D.

  2. the Center for Applied Social Research, Northeastern University, Boston, MA

    Glenn L. Pierce Ph.D.

Authors
  1. William H. Fisher Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Glenn L. Pierce Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

This paper was supported by grant MH-36220 from the Center for Studies of Antisocial and Violent Behavior, NIMH. The authors thank Dwayne Sturgess and Charles Rommel of the state of Washington's Department of Social and Health Services for providing the data upon which this study is based, and Baron Briggs for programming assistance.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Fisher, W.H., Pierce, G.L. Civil commitment reform: Context and consequences. Psych Quart 57, 217–229 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01277616

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01277616

Keywords

Search

Navigation