Bursztajn H, Gutheil T G, Mills M, Hamm R M, Brodsky A
Am J Psychiatry. 1986 Feb;143(2):170-4. doi: 10.1176/ajp.143.2.170.
The current debate over the "police powers" versus parens patriae rationales for involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill underscores the need for empirical study of the process of judicial decision making in civil commitment and determinations of competence. The authors report the ratings on 26 descriptive variables made by five Massachusetts district court judges for 35 patients in civil commitment hearings. Nearly all of the hearings resulted in commitments. These findings suggest that psychiatrists may be setting too high a threshold for petitioning for commitment. Experienced judges appeared to be sensitive to the kinds of clinical issues that earlier studies have shown to contribute significantly to the psychiatrist's decision to petition for commitment.
当前关于精神疾病患者非自愿住院的“警察权力”与国家监护理由之间的争论凸显了对民事收容司法决策过程和行为能力判定进行实证研究的必要性。作者报告了五位马萨诸塞州地方法院法官在民事收容听证会上对35名患者的26个描述性变量的评分。几乎所有听证会都导致了收容。这些发现表明，精神科医生提出收容申请的门槛可能定得过高。经验丰富的法官似乎对早期研究表明对精神科医生提出收容申请的决定有重大影响的临床问题很敏感。
