Turkheimer E, Parry C D
University of Virginia, Charlottesville 22903-2477.
Am Psychol. 1992 May;47(5):646-55. doi: 10.1037//0003-066x.47.5.646.
The failure of civil commitment procedures to meet statutory requirements is one of the more reliable findings in the applied social sciences. Most states now require specific legal procedures and behavioral standards for involuntary hospitalization. Nonetheless, empirical studies have demonstrated that commitment hearings are rarely adversarial and clinical concerns continue to take precedence over legal issues. These findings are analyzed in the context of three related issues: the grounds for commitment that are used in civil commitment hearings, the particular difficulties of recommitment hearings, and the shortcomings of the national policy of deinstitutionalization. The authors conclude that a primary cause of the gap between legal standards and actual practice is the absence of viable, less restrictive alternatives to inpatient treatment.
民事强制住院程序未能满足法定要求，这是应用社会科学中较为可靠的研究结果之一。现在大多数州都要求对非自愿住院设定特定的法律程序和行为标准。尽管如此，实证研究表明，强制住院听证会很少具有对抗性，临床问题继续优先于法律问题。本文将结合三个相关问题对这些研究结果进行分析：民事强制住院听证会上使用的强制住院理由、再次强制住院听证会的特殊困难以及国家去机构化政策的缺陷。作者得出结论，法律标准与实际做法之间存在差距的一个主要原因是缺乏可行的、限制较少的住院治疗替代方案。
