Perlin Michael L
New York Law School, 57 Worth Street, New York, NY 10013, USA.
Psychol Public Policy Law. 2003 Mar-Jun;9(1-2):183-208. doi: 10.1037/1076-8971.9.1-2.183.
This article considers the implications of assisted outpatient commitment laws (OPC), with specific focus on New York's "Kendra's Law" through the lens of therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ). In this article, the author offers perspectives on the relationship between involuntary civil commitment, outpatient commitment, and the concept of the "least restrictive alternative"; considers pertinent empirical research, and looks at OPC's controversial relationship to forced drugging. Here, the civil libertarian critique is briefly considered, as well as the MacArthur Research Network research. Finally, the author looks closely at Kendra's Law, providing a brief overview of the law itself, and identifying some "pressure points" and pivotal issues, and considers the TJ implications of Kendra's Law, to determine how it "fits" into the public's "take" on all of mental disability law.
本文从治疗法学(TJ)的视角探讨了辅助门诊治疗法(OPC)的影响,特别聚焦于纽约的“肯德拉法案”。在本文中,作者就非自愿民事住院治疗、门诊治疗与“限制最少替代方案”概念之间的关系发表了看法;考量了相关实证研究,并审视了辅助门诊治疗法与强制用药的争议关系。这里简要探讨了公民自由意志主义者的批评以及麦克阿瑟研究网络的研究。最后,作者深入研究了肯德拉法案,简要概述了该法案本身,指出了一些“压力点”和关键问题,并考量了肯德拉法案在治疗法学方面的影响,以确定它如何与公众对所有精神残疾法的“看法”相“契合”。