Involuntary commitment: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
CSV import Tags: mobile edit mobile web edit |
||
| Line 34: | Line 34: | ||
{{stub}} | {{stub}} | ||
<gallery> | |||
File:Anthony_Ashley-Cooper,_7th_Earl_of_Shaftesbury_by_John_Collier.jpg|Portrait of Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 7th Earl of Shaftesbury by John Collier | |||
</gallery> | |||
Latest revision as of 02:08, 17 February 2025
Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital (inpatient) or in the community (outpatient).
Overview[edit]
Involuntary commitment is typically used for individuals who are in great need of treatment due to their mental illness but are not aware they are ill and refuse treatment. The process is often initiated by a family member or mental health professional. The laws and requirements for involuntary commitment vary widely among jurisdictions, but generally, it is required that the individual pose a threat to themselves or others due to their mental illness.
Criteria[edit]
The criteria for involuntary commitment are defined by law, which varies by jurisdiction. Generally, the criteria include a mental illness diagnosis, a risk of harm to self or others, and the inability to care for oneself. Some jurisdictions also include "grave disability" as a criterion, which can include being unable to use public amenities such as public transport, or to obtain food, clothing, or shelter.
Process[edit]
The process for involuntary commitment generally involves a petition by a qualified individual, such as a mental health professional or a family member, stating that the individual meets the criteria for commitment. This is followed by a hearing in which a judge or other legal authority reviews the evidence and makes a decision. If the individual is committed, they are typically sent to a psychiatric hospital for treatment.
Controversy[edit]
Involuntary commitment is a controversial issue. Advocates argue that it is necessary to ensure the safety and well-being of individuals with severe mental illness who are unable to care for themselves. Critics argue that it infringes on individual rights and that it can be misused.


