Callahan J C
J Med Philos. 1984 Aug;9(3):261-93. doi: 10.1093/jmp/9.3.261.
My purpose in this paper is to show that current legal criteria for paternalistic involuntary psychiatric confinement of the mentally ill are both too narrow and too broad. I do this by first developing a principle of justified paternalistic interference with adults, which I take to be acceptably protective of individual liberty, but which does not require unnecessary sacrifices of individual welfare. After offering an analysis of current legal criteria for involuntary confinement, I argue that an acceptable theory of paternalistic interference reveals that those criteria (1) exclude some cases where confinement would be morally permissible, and (2) allow paternalistic confinement of many whose detention is not morally justifiable.
我撰写本文的目的是要表明，当前针对精神病患者家长式非自愿精神科禁闭的法律标准既过于狭窄又过于宽泛。我将通过首先阐述一项针对成年人的正当家长式干预原则来做到这一点，我认为该原则对个人自由的保护程度是可接受的，但又不要求不必要地牺牲个人福祉。在对当前非自愿禁闭的法律标准进行分析之后，我认为，一种可接受的家长式干预理论表明，这些标准（1）排除了一些禁闭在道德上可允许的情况，并且（2）允许对许多其拘留在道德上不合理的人进行家长式禁闭。
