+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Compulsory outpatient treatment and mental health care: aspects of the legal discussion from the European and Israeli perspective



Compulsory outpatient treatment and mental health care: aspects of the legal discussion from the European and Israeli perspective



Psychiatrische Praxis 34(Suppl. 2): S227



Recent German legal initiatives for ordering compulsory outpatient treatment in mental health care are discussed and contrasted with regulations from other European countries and Israel. The legal basis for such coercive measures is comparatively assessed by use of these documents. European countries seem somewhat hesitant to incorporate compulsory outpatient treatment into their civil legislation frameworks. Legal initiatives on this issue in Germany were rejected both on the level of the Federal civil law, and on the State-level of public administrative law. From the legal point of view reasons against compulsory outpatient treatment in mental health care are embedded in the constitutional law and in international human rights.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 052272633

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 17394115

DOI: 10.1055/s-2006-952011


Related references

Compulsory hospitalisation and optimal mental health care: A European perspective and the example of Greece. Psychiatrike 18(4): 307-314, 2007

Potential legal protection problems in the use of compulsory commitment in mental health care in Norway. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 34(6): 393-399, 2011

Legal, social, cultural and political developments in mental health care in the UK: the Liverpool black mental health service users' perspective. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing 9(1): 103-110, 2002

Delaware's institution of choice for mental health treatment = prison. (Is access to inpatient/outpatient mental health services dependent on an individual's legal or financial status?). Delaware Medical Journal 81(1): 29-33, 2009

Legal aspects of health on the internet: A European perspective. BMJ 324(7337): 605-606, 2002

Involuntary Admission and Compulsory Treatment in Mental Health Services (I) || An Overview of Compulsory, Noncompulsory, and Coercive Interventions for Treating People with Mental Disorders in the United States. International Journal of Mental Health 37(3): 57-80, 2008

Mental health treatment and medical care utilization in a fee-for-service system: outpatient mental health treatment following the onset of a chronic disease. American Journal of Public Health 73(4): 422-429, 1983

Community care, competition and coercion: a legal perspective on privatized mental health care. American Journal of Law and Medicine 19(1-2): 145-175, 1993

Compulsory treatment under legal uncertainty: part 1: the current legal situation on compulsory treatment of patients with psychiatric disorders incapable of consenting. Der Nervenarzt 83(9): 1142-1149, 2012

Comparison between two legal indications for compulsory outpatient treatment in Israel. Medicine and Law 23(3): 607-613, 2004

Compulsory treatment in the community for persons in need of mental health care. Tijdschrift Voor Psychiatrie 59(4): 221-228, 2017

Compulsory mental health care in Norway: the treatment criterion. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 37(2): 168-173, 2014

Involuntary Admission and Compulsory Treatment in Mental Health Services (II) || The Consumer Movement and Compulsory Treatment: A Professional Outlook. International Journal of Mental Health 37(4): 33-45, 2008

Involuntary Admission and Compulsory Treatment in Mental Health Services (I) || Recreational Drugs' Scenario and Compulsory Treatment in the United Kingdom. International Journal of Mental Health 37(3): 22-56, 2008

Outpatient mental health services for children in foster care: a national perspective. Child Abuse and Neglect 28(6): 699-714, 2004