RESUMEN
The authors conducted a retrospective study of the initial impact (1986-1987) of the Rivers v. Katz decision involving patients' right to refuse treatment at New York State's largest forensic psychiatric hospital. Of 18 petitions submitted, 15 cases were adjudicated. All 15 patients were found incompetent, and all treatment plans submitted were approved by the court. Most patients selected for Rivers hearings were diagnosed as having chronic schizophrenia and/or were older than the hospital population. A comparison of the implementation of the Rivers decision with that of Rogers v. Commissioner of Mental Health in Massachusetts showed Rogers to be significantly more expensive in human resources, time, and money.
Asunto(s)
Psiquiatría Forense/legislación & jurisprudencia , Enfermos Mentales , Defensa del Paciente/legislación & jurisprudencia , Cooperación del Paciente , Adulto , Factores de Edad , Internamiento Obligatorio del Enfermo Mental/legislación & jurisprudencia , Femenino , Humanos , Masculino , Massachusetts , Trastornos Mentales/diagnóstico , Persona de Mediana Edad , New York , Esquizofrenia/diagnóstico , Psicología del EsquizofrénicoRESUMEN
Neonaticide is the killing of a newborn within the first 24 h of life. Although relatively uncommon, numerous cases of maternal neonaticide have been reported. To date, only two cases of paternal neonaticide have appeared in the literature. The authors review neonaticide and present two new case reports of paternal neonaticide. A psychodynamic explanation of paternal neonaticide is formulated. A new definition for neonaticide, more consistent with biological and psychological determinants, is suggested.