Evidence Library

Showing 10 of 11 results.
Leo Beletsky, JD, MPH •
Health in Justice Action Lab
Sarah Seymour •
Health in Justice Action Lab

This legal map presents statutes and regulations that authorize the involuntary commitment of substance users, in effect as of March 1, 2018. It catalogs the statutory standards authorizing commitment, parties authorized to petition for a commitment, provisions surrounding clinical assessments, parameters of judicial review, time periods for commitment authorization, allowable treatment, and procedures for recommitment.

 
Staff •
Center for Public Health Law Research

This map explores state laws and regulations that govern who can initiate the outpatient commitment process, the duration of commitment, whether the patient can refuse medication, what consequences exist for non-compliance, and whether outpatient commitment sets limits on the patient’s right to possess a firearm.

 
Staff •
Center for Public Health Law Research
Jeffrey Swanson, PhD •
Duke University, PHLR Methods Core
John Petrila, JD, LLM •
University of Southern Florida

This map explores the variation in short-term emergency civil commitment laws -- laws that govern how and when an individual may be admitted to a psychiatric facility without their consent.

 
Richard Bonnie, LLB •
University of Virginia Law School

A recovery-based mental health system uses coercion only when necessary to prevent harm or arrest severe deterioration, only as a last resort, and always with respect for the person's dignity. Recovery envisions a process by which persons experiencing a mental disorder take control of their lives, including planning for care in a crisis, assisted by caring partners. For those who are strongly treatment-resistant or have not begun the recovery process, there may be no alternative to coercion.

 
Jeffrey Swanson, PhD •
Duke University, PHLR Methods Core

This study takes as a starting place the inherent tension between public safety and civil rights in considering mental illness as a significant concern for firearms policy and law. This means grappling with the full range of social benefits and costs that may accrue in casting a wide net with a broad mesh to find a few dangerous people among the many with largely non-dangerous disorders of thought, mood, and behavior.

 
Richard Bonnie, LLB •
University of Virginia Law School
Jeanita W. Richardson, PhD, MEd •
University of Virginia Law School

This article reports results of a survey of 460 individuals in five stakeholder groups during the initial implementation period of a Virginia health care law that enables competent adults with serious mental illness to plan for treatment during incapacitating crises using an integrated advance directive with no legal distinction between psychiatric or other causes of decisional incapacity. The study concludes that relevant stakeholders support implementation of advance directives for mental health, but level of baseline knowledge and perception of barriers vary.

 
Jennifer Wood, PhD •
Public Health Law Research
Jeffrey Swanson, PhD •
Duke University, PHLR Methods Core
Scott Burris, JD •
Center for Public Health Law Research
Allison Gilbert Robertson, PhD, MPH •
Duke University

This monograph illuminates one key component of service systems, policing, highlighting the role of police officers as front-line workers in the community, and it examines trends in thinking and practice and common challenges surrounding policing and mental illnesses internationally.

 

Pages