The Supreme Court sidesteps the right to treatment question.
出版信息
Univ Colo Law Rev. 1976 Winter;47(2):299-323.
PMID:11664633
Abstract
摘要
相似文献
1
The Supreme Court sidesteps the right to treatment question.
Univ Colo Law Rev. 1976 Winter;47(2):299-323.
2
Toward a right to treatment for civilly committed mental patients.争取被民事强制收治的精神病人的治疗权。
UMKC Law Rev. 1975 Fall;44(1):23-48.
3
O'Connor v. Donaldson: the Supreme Court sidesteps the right to treatment.奥康纳诉唐纳森案：最高法院回避了接受治疗的权利。
Calif West Law Rev. 1976;13(1):168-87.
4
Involuntary civil commitment: the right to treatment and the right to refuse treatment.非自愿民事住院治疗：接受治疗的权利与拒绝治疗的权利。
Psychiatr Ann. 1977 May;7(5):50-51+.
5
A constitutional right to treatment: past, present, and future.接受治疗的宪法权利：过去、现在与未来。
Prof Psychol. 1976 Nov;7(4):453-67.
6
Rights and dignity: Congress, the Supreme Court, and people with disabilities after Pennhurst.权利与尊严：国会、最高法院以及潘恩赫斯特案后的残疾人权益
West New Engl Law Rev. 1983 Winter;5(3):327-61.
7
Donaldson, dangerousness, and the right to treatment.唐纳森、危险性与治疗权。
Hastings Constit Law Q. 1976 Spring;3(2):599-627.
8
Revising Pennsylvania's involuntary civil commitment statute.
Univ Pittsbg Law Rev. 1975 Fall;37(1):180-93.
9
o'Connor v. Donaldson: the death of the quid pro quo argument for a right to treatment?
Clevel State Law Rev. 1975;24(3):557-71.
10
o'Connor v. Donaldson: due process rights of mental patients in state hospitals.奥康纳诉唐纳森案：州立医院精神病人的正当程序权利
Rev Law Soc Change. 1976 Winter;6(1):65-82.
Zotero 插件