Abstract
There is always potential for conflict to arise between scientific methods and the rule of law. This article considers a recent example of such conflict which can arise when attempts are made to evaluate the effectiveness of mental health legislation via the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). In particular, the author discusses the use of RCTs in the United States to evaluate the use of Community Treatment Orders. These RCTs involve the release — for the purposes of the research — of compulsory patients under the legal regime. The article concludes that, whilst we may admire the imagination and boldness of the American researchers who have conduct such research, we should think hard before following their methods in any legal system like the English, which values so highly the supremacy of legislation.
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 callDisclaimer: 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.
