Abstract
Involuntary commitment (IC) for the treatment of substance use disorders is a highly controversial and poorly understood practice, with California offering a striking example. The state's involuntary commitment laws, known collectively as Lanterman-Petris-Short, authorized IC for grave disability related to chronic alcoholism. These provisions remain shrouded in obscurity, and data on their usage are lacking. Amid the ongoing debate over the utility of IC as a tool to treat severe substance use disorders and legislation expanding IC for substance use disorders (SUDs) in California and other states, this article highlights the need to better study the use and effectiveness of existing legislation as well as to consider upstream interventions, such as expansion of community-based treatment models.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
