Suppr超能文献

强化个案管理或治疗性个案管理:门诊强制治疗是解决之道吗?

PLC or TLC: is outpatient commitment the/an answer?

作者信息

Wales Heathcote W, Hiday Virginia Aldigé

机构信息

Georgetown University Law Center, United States.

出版信息

Int J Law Psychiatry. 2006 Nov-Dec;29(6):451-68. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2006.08.001. Epub 2006 Nov 1.

Abstract

The lively debate over mandated community treatment in general and outpatient commitment laws (OPC) in particular has raised many issues. At its core, the debate is over how and to what extent laws should be formulated to persuade, leverage or coerce (PLC) persons with severe mental illness living in the community to comply with medications that mental health professionals believe they need. The alternative to PLC is what we call TLC (tender loving care): a strategy of using benefits - improved patient-centered treatment, entitlements and service delivery, including assertive outreach - rather than penalties or conditions on access to services, to induce compliance. We examine three aspects of the debate: (1) the empirical case for the need for OPC court orders to maintain revolving-door severely mentally ill persons in the community; (2) the normative argument over whether such orders constitute coercion, and, if so, whether that coercion is justifiable; and (3) the incentives such orders create to leverage community providers to augment resources and tailor treatment and services to entice patients to become willing participants in the management of their disorders.

摘要

关于强制社区治疗,特别是门诊强制治疗法(OPC)的激烈辩论引发了许多问题。这场辩论的核心在于,法律应如何制定以及在何种程度上制定,才能劝说、促使或强制(PLC)社区中的重症精神疾病患者遵守心理健康专业人员认为他们所需的药物治疗。PLC的替代方案是我们所说的TLC(温柔关爱):一种利用福利的策略——改善以患者为中心的治疗、权利和服务提供,包括主动外展服务——而不是通过处罚或限制服务获取条件来促使患者依从。我们审视辩论的三个方面:(1)关于需要OPC法庭命令以防止重症精神疾病患者在社区中频繁进出医院的实证依据;(2)关于此类命令是否构成强制以及如果构成强制,这种强制是否合理的规范性争论;(3)此类命令所产生的激励措施,以促使社区服务提供者增加资源并调整治疗和服务,从而吸引患者自愿参与自身疾病的管理。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验