Abstract
Dresser discusses Joan C. Callahan's article in the same issue of the Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, refuting Callahan's criticism of current legal criteria for involuntary psychiatric commitment and her proposal for paternalistic commitment of some nondangerous persons. Dresser maintains that existing civil commitment and competency legislation, and revised dangerousness standards proposed by psychiatrists, are similar to Callahan's criteria. She also rejects Callahan's arguments for paternalistic intervention based on incompetence as presenting the same difficulties of reliable assessment as the current assessment of dangerousness. She concludes that determining justifiable criteria for involuntary commitment is a formidable task, and one that requires an interdisciplinary approach.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
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 call
