Rogers J A, Centifanti J B
Project SHARE, Philadelphia, PA 19107.
Schizophr Bull. 1991;17(1):9-14. doi: 10.1093/schbul/17.1.9.
Two mental health consumers, both of whom have been involved in the movement for the right to refuse forced psychotropic drugging, respond to the article in this issue by Rosenson and Kasten on their proposal to have consumers use so-called Ulysses wills to authorize psychiatric treatment in advance. The consumer authors urge the development and use of what they term "Mill's wills," providing for both the acceptance and the rejection of particular forms of psychiatric treatment. Based on recent Federal and State court cases on the right to refuse and the right to die, as well as State "living will" statutes, the authors argue that mental health consumers have the same rights to "just say no" and/or affirm their own treatment choices as do other citizens in the context of unwanted medical treatments and the right to die. The two consumers suggest that, rather than engage in needless controversy and attacks, consumers, families, professionals, and advocates all need to work together, because they are really not so far apart on the issue of prearranged treatment consent and refusal.
两位精神健康消费者回应了罗森森和卡斯滕在本期发表的文章，他们二人都参与了拒绝强制使用精神药物的运动，而那篇文章提出让消费者使用所谓的尤利西斯遗嘱提前授权精神科治疗的提议。这两位消费者作者敦促制定并使用他们所称的“密尔遗嘱”，既规定接受特定形式的精神科治疗，也规定拒绝特定形式的精神科治疗。基于近期联邦和州法院关于拒绝权和死亡权的判例，以及州“生前遗嘱”法规，作者们认为，在不必要的医疗治疗和死亡权方面，精神健康消费者与其他公民一样，拥有“说不”和/或确认自己治疗选择的权利。这两位消费者建议，消费者、家庭、专业人士和倡导者不应陷入不必要的争议和攻击，而应共同努力，因为在预先安排的治疗同意和拒绝问题上，他们的分歧其实并没有那么大。
