377 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15685765)
1. Forced medication of defendants to achieve trial competency: an update on the law after Sell.
Hilgers K; Ramer P
Georget J Leg Ethics; 2004; 17(4):813-26. PubMed ID: 15685765
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
2. Of pills and needs: involuntarily medicating the psychotic inmate when execution looms.
Cantor JD
Indiana Health Law Rev; 2005; 2(1):117-70. PubMed ID: 17111502
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
3. Seeking an answer: questioning the validity of forcible medication to ensure mental competency of those condemned to die.
Stricker BW
McGeorge Law Rev; 2000; 32(1):317-40. PubMed ID: 15709265
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
4. Forcible medication for courtroom competence--the case of Charles Sell.
Annas GJ
N Engl J Med; 2004 May; 350(22):2297-301. PubMed ID: 15163782
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
5. Psychotropic medication in the criminal trial process: the constitutional and therapeutic implications of Riggins v. Nevada.
Winick BJ
N Y Law Sch J Hum Rights; 1993; 10(Part 3):637-709. PubMed ID: 16708427
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
6. Old law meets new medicine: revisiting involuntary psychotropic medication of the criminal defendant.
Siegel DM; Grudzinskas AJ; Pinals DA
Wis L Rev; 2001; 2():307-80. PubMed ID: 16281337
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
7. Forcible medication and personal autonomy: the case of Charles Thomas Sell.
Quinlan M
Boston Univ Law Rev; 2004 Feb; 84(1):275-99. PubMed ID: 16211756
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
8. Sell v. U.S.: involuntary treatment case or catalyst for change?
Leong GB
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2005; 33(3):292-4. PubMed ID: 16186189
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
9. Justices let stand ruling that allows forcibly drugging an inmate before execution.
Lewis NA
N Y Times Web; 2003 Oct; ():A16. PubMed ID: 14610765
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
10. Restored to health to be put to death: reconciling the legal and ethical dilemmas of medicating to execute in Singleton v. Norris.
Hensl KB
Villanova Law Rev; 2004; 49(2):291-328. PubMed ID: 16485377
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
11. State can make inmate sane enough to execute.
Liptak A
N Y Times Web; 2003 Feb; ():A1, A27. PubMed ID: 12812158
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
12. Justices restrict forced medication preceding a trial: mental competency issue. In 6-3 ruling, court says use of drugs must be in best interest of defendant.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2003 Jun; ():A1, A20. PubMed ID: 14621709
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
13. Between madness and death: the medicate-to-execute controversy.
Latzer B
Crim Justice Ethics; 2003; 22(2):3-14. PubMed ID: 15080128
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
14. Forcing psychiatric drugs on defendants is weighed.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2003 Mar; ():A18. PubMed ID: 12812160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
15. Constitutional law--substantive due process--Pennsylvania Supreme Court holds that criminal defendant's best interests justify forcible medication.--Commonwealth v. Sam, 952 A.2d 565 (Pa. 2008).
Harv Law Rev; 2009 May; 122(7):1961-8. PubMed ID: 19492499
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
16. Mental health advance directives: having one's say?
Dunlap JA
KY Law J; 2000; 89(2):327-86. PubMed ID: 12737165
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
17. Trial rights and psychotropic drugs: the case against administering involuntary medications to a defendant during trial.
Klein DW
Vanderbilt Law Rev; 2002; 55(1):165-218. PubMed ID: 12680366
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
18. Involuntary medication treatment for competency restoration of 22 defendants with delusional disorder.
Herbel BL; Stelmach H
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2007; 35(1):47-59. PubMed ID: 17389345
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
19. Riggins v. Nevada: towards a unified standard for a prisoner's right to refuse medication?
Dlugacz HA
Law Psychol Rev; 1993; 17():41-83. PubMed ID: 11659926
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
20. Supreme Court limits permissible scope of government's ability to force medication of mentally ill defendants.
Prieto-Gonzalez M
J Law Med Ethics; 2003; 31(4):737-9. PubMed ID: 14968679
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Next] [New Search]
