Allen M, Smith V F
Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Washington, DC 20005-5002, USA.
Psychiatr Serv. 2001 Mar;52(3):342-6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.52.3.342.
Policy makers have recently begun to reconsider involuntary outpatient commitment as a means of enhancing public safety and providing mental health services to people deemed to be noncompliant with treatment. The authors review the therapeutic claims for outpatient commitment and take the position that there is insufficient evidence that it is effective. They offer arguments that outpatient commitment may not improve public safety and may not be more effective than voluntary services. The authors further point out that outpatient commitment may undermine the delivery of voluntary services and may drive consumers away from the mental health system. The authors conclude that outpatient commitment programs are vulnerable to legal challenge because they may depart from established constitutional standards for involuntary treatment.
政策制定者最近开始重新考虑非自愿门诊治疗承诺，将其作为加强公共安全以及为那些被认为不配合治疗的人提供心理健康服务的一种手段。作者们审视了门诊治疗承诺的治疗主张，并认为没有足够证据表明其有效。他们提出理由称，门诊治疗承诺可能无法改善公共安全，而且可能并不比自愿服务更有效。作者们进一步指出，门诊治疗承诺可能会破坏自愿服务的提供，还可能将消费者从心理健康系统中赶走。作者们得出结论，门诊治疗承诺项目容易受到法律质疑，因为它们可能背离了既定的非自愿治疗宪法标准。
