Aftermath of the Rogers decision: assessing the costs.
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Rogers v. Commissioner is generally regarded as an important right to refuse treatment decision requiring maximum judicial involvement in the treatment of nonconsenting patients. Since courts and legislators in other jurisdictions have looked to Rogers for guidance on right to refuse treatment issues, and since some have adopted it as a model, it is essential for lawmakers to understand the economic realities of the Massachusetts experience and the commitment of resources required by this model. The authors review these realities, suggesting that there are distinct reasons for considering this particular model "cost ineffective" in preserving patients' rights.
Schouten
R
R
Program in Psychiatry and the Law, Massachusetts Mental Health Center, Harvard Medical School, Boston.
Gutheil
T G
TG
D003362:Cost-Benefit Analysis; D004467:Economics; D004992:Ethics, Medical; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D006801:Humans; D033222:Judicial Role; D007872:Legal Guardians; D008404:Massachusetts; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000188:drug therapy*; D028642:Persons with Psychiatric Disorders; D010344:Patient Advocacy / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010349:Patient Compliance; D028701:Patient Rights