奥康纳诉唐纳森案(1975):法律挑战、精神病学权威和去机构化中的危险问题

IF 0.6 Q2 LAW AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY Pub Date : 2023-02-22 DOI:10.1093/ajlh/njad002
L. Hirshbein
{"title":"奥康纳诉唐纳森案(1975):法律挑战、精神病学权威和去机构化中的危险问题","authors":"L. Hirshbein","doi":"10.1093/ajlh/njad002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In 1975, the Supreme Court heard the case of O’Connor v Donaldson, in which Kenneth Donaldson disputed the decision of his psychiatrists at the Florida State Hospital to keep him incarcerated for 15 years for a mental illness, though he was not dangerous or receiving treatment. The Donaldson decision pitted activist attorneys against psychiatrists who were increasingly beleaguered in their efforts to assert expertise about mental illness in American society. This case and its context offer a window into the psychiatric and legal conversations within the deinstitutionalization movement. During a time when both psychiatry and the law were shifting in their professional claims and emphases, each side was captured by an idea of reform based on how they imagined the problems to be configured. Examining themes of place, authority, right to treatment, and dangerousness reveals the limitations of the reforms and the hardening of a narrative that limited state action to the elision of mental illness with dangerousness.","PeriodicalId":54164,"journal":{"name":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"O’Connor v Donaldson (1975): Legal Challenges, Psychiatric Authority, and the Dangerousness Problem in Deinstitutionalization\",\"authors\":\"L. Hirshbein\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ajlh/njad002\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n In 1975, the Supreme Court heard the case of O’Connor v Donaldson, in which Kenneth Donaldson disputed the decision of his psychiatrists at the Florida State Hospital to keep him incarcerated for 15 years for a mental illness, though he was not dangerous or receiving treatment. The Donaldson decision pitted activist attorneys against psychiatrists who were increasingly beleaguered in their efforts to assert expertise about mental illness in American society. This case and its context offer a window into the psychiatric and legal conversations within the deinstitutionalization movement. During a time when both psychiatry and the law were shifting in their professional claims and emphases, each side was captured by an idea of reform based on how they imagined the problems to be configured. Examining themes of place, authority, right to treatment, and dangerousness reveals the limitations of the reforms and the hardening of a narrative that limited state action to the elision of mental illness with dangerousness.\",\"PeriodicalId\":54164,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY\",\"volume\":\"1 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-02-22\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njad002\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AMERICAN JOURNAL OF LEGAL HISTORY","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ajlh/njad002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

1975年,最高法院审理了奥康纳诉唐纳森案,该案中,肯尼斯·唐纳森对佛罗里达州立医院精神病医生的决定提出异议,该决定以精神疾病为由将他监禁15年,尽管他并不危险,也没有接受治疗。唐纳森案的判决使维权律师与精神科医生对立起来,后者在美国社会中主张精神疾病专业知识的努力日益受到围攻。这个案例及其背景为去机构化运动中的精神病学和法律对话提供了一个窗口。在一段时间里,精神病学和法律都在转移他们的专业主张和重点,双方都被一种基于他们想象的问题配置的改革理念所吸引。考察地点、权威、治疗权利和危险性等主题,揭示了改革的局限性,以及一种将国家行动限制在排除具有危险性的精神疾病的叙事的僵化。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
O’Connor v Donaldson (1975): Legal Challenges, Psychiatric Authority, and the Dangerousness Problem in Deinstitutionalization
In 1975, the Supreme Court heard the case of O’Connor v Donaldson, in which Kenneth Donaldson disputed the decision of his psychiatrists at the Florida State Hospital to keep him incarcerated for 15 years for a mental illness, though he was not dangerous or receiving treatment. The Donaldson decision pitted activist attorneys against psychiatrists who were increasingly beleaguered in their efforts to assert expertise about mental illness in American society. This case and its context offer a window into the psychiatric and legal conversations within the deinstitutionalization movement. During a time when both psychiatry and the law were shifting in their professional claims and emphases, each side was captured by an idea of reform based on how they imagined the problems to be configured. Examining themes of place, authority, right to treatment, and dangerousness reveals the limitations of the reforms and the hardening of a narrative that limited state action to the elision of mental illness with dangerousness.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Legal History was established in 1957 as the first English-language legal history journal. The journal remains devoted to the publication of articles and documents on the history of all legal systems. The journal is refereed, and members of the Judiciary and the Bar form the advisory board.
期刊最新文献
Letter Writing and Legal Consciousness during World War I Exemplary Damages Practice in Late Eighteenth and Early Nineteenth-Century England Alexander Hamilton's Constitutional Jurisprudence and the Bank Bill The Early Years of Congress’s Anti-Removal Power Movement on Removal: An Emerging Consensus about The First Congress and Presidential Power
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1