The application of civil commitment law and practices to a case of delusional disorder: a cross‐national comparison of legal approaches in the United States and the United Kingdom

Abstract

Legal approaches to civil commitment in the United States and the United Kingdom are compared. A concise overview of the historical evolution of civil commitment in both countries precedes a discussion of the present scheme of commitment standards in each system. These current standards in U.S. and U.K. jurisdictions are then applied to a hypothetical case of delusional disorder. A discussion of the constructive use of civil commitment in patients with delusional disorder who may be dangerous focuses on its value as a preventive measure against potential harm to self or others, as well as the pros and cons of coercive assessment and treatment. Despite the many differences in approach to commitment, the authors concur that in both countries the patient with delusional disorder was committable before the commission of a serious criminal offense.