0
Get Alert
Please Wait... Processing your request... Please Wait.
You must sign in to sign-up for alerts.

Please confirm that your email address is correct, so you can successfully receive this alert.

Article   |    
Rivers in Practice: Clinicians' Assessments of Patients' Decision-Making Capacity
Karen McKinnon; Francine Cournos; Barbara Stanley
Psychiatric Services 1989; doi:
View Author and Article Information

This work was supported in part by grants MH41734 and MH41735 to Dr. Stanley from the National Institute of Mental Health.

New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City

New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, Washington Heights Community Service

New York State Psychiatric Institute and the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York City, City University of New York, John Jay College, The Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons

1989 by the American Psychiatric Association

text A A A
PDF of the full text article.
Abstract

Since the Rivers v. Katz decision in 1986, clinicians in New York State have been required to assess patient decision-making capacity before judicial review of petitions to administer involuntary medication. The authors examined 42 capacity assessments made by psychiatrists at a large state hospital in New York City. Although the capacity assessments were often incomplete and rarely addressed the treatment decision, most clinicians judged patients as lacking capacity to make treatment decisions. The findings suggest that psychiatrists may view capacity assessments as irrelevant because of the manifestly grave nature of patients' illnesses or may not differentiate the capacity assessment from the mental status examination. The capacity assessment may nonetheless be a useful tool because it encourages clinicians to discuss the proposed treatment with patients and to present information more effectively in court.

Abstract Teaser
Figures in this Article

Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.
Sign In Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.
Sign In to Access Full Content
 
Username
Password
Sign in via Athens (What is this?)
Athens is a service for single sign-on which enables access to all of an institution's subscriptions on- or off-site.
Not a subscriber?

Subscribe Now/Learn More

PsychiatryOnline subscription options offer access to the DSM-5 library, books, journals, CME, and patient resources. This all-in-one virtual library provides psychiatrists and mental health professionals with key resources for diagnosis, treatment, research, and professional development.

Need more help? PsychiatryOnline Customer Service may be reached by emailing PsychiatryOnline@psych.org or by calling 800-368-5777 (in the U.S.) or 703-907-7322 (outside the U.S.).

+

References

+
+

CME Activity

There is currently no quiz available for this resource. Please click here to go to the CME page to find another.
Submit a Comments
Please read the other comments before you post yours. Contributors must reveal any conflict of interest.
Comments are moderated and will appear on the site at the discertion of APA editorial staff.

* = Required Field
(if multiple authors, separate names by comma)
Example: John Doe



Related Content
Articles
Books
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Psychiatry, 5th Edition > Chapter 41.  >
Gabbard's Treatments of Psychiatric Disorders, 4th Edition > Chapter 55.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Psychiatry, 4th Edition > Chapter 33.  >
The American Psychiatric Publishing Textbook of Geriatric Psychiatry, 4th Edition > Chapter 33.  >
APA Practice Guidelines > Chapter 12.  >
Psychiatric News
PubMed Articles