605 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 17111502)
21. Forcible medication: a new insanity defence.
Economist; 2003 Mar; 366(8313):31. PubMed ID: 15022679
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
22. Developments in the law: the law of mental illness.
Harv Law Rev; 2008 Feb; 121(4):1114-91. PubMed ID: 18354871
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
23. 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]
24. Forcing psychiatric drugs on defendants is weighed.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 2003 Mar; ():A18. PubMed ID: 12812160
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
25. Fourteenth amendment--the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs masked by prison bars.
Sindel PE
J Crim Law Criminol; 1991; 81(4):952-80. PubMed ID: 16145787
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
26. 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]
27. "Mind control," "synthetic sanity," "artificial competence," and genuine confusion: legally relevant effects of antipsychotic medication.
Gutheil TG; Appelbaum PS
Hofstra Law Rev; 1983; 12(1):77-120. PubMed ID: 15739272
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
28. Exploring ethical, legal, and professional issues with the mentally ill on death row.
Plichta JE
J Forensic Nurs; 2008; 4(3):143-6. PubMed ID: 18798882
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
29. New hearing on forced medication of inmate.
Greenhouse L
N Y Times Web; 1990 Nov; ():A30. PubMed ID: 11646793
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
30. The involuntary medication of Jared Loughner and pretrial jail detainees in nonmedical correctional facilities.
Felthous AR
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2012; 40(1):98-112. PubMed ID: 22396347
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
31. Treating criminal offenders in correctional contexts: identifying interests and distributing responsibilities.
Schopp RF
Behav Sci Law; 2009; 27(5):833-55. PubMed ID: 19784945
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
32. Psychosis and punishment. Should the mentally ill be drugged so they can face execution?
Szegedy-Maszak M
US News World Rep; 2001 Mar; 130(12):50-1. PubMed ID: 11277042
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
33. [Role of psychiatrists in capital punishment cases : a review].
Nakajima N
Seishin Shinkeigaku Zasshi; 2002; 104(3):229-40. PubMed ID: 11985117
[TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]
34. Losing your rights: complications of misdiagnosis.
Rappaport RG
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2006; 34(4):436-8. PubMed ID: 17185470
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
35. Death, ethics and the state.
Kalt BC
Harv J Law Public Policy; 2000; 23(2):487-550. PubMed ID: 12452157
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
36. Sell v. United States: the appropriate standard for involuntarily administering antipsychotic drugs to dangerous detainees for trial.
Borger BA
Seton Hall Law Rev; 2005; 35(3):1099-120. PubMed ID: 16270457
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
37. Madness on trial.
Cornwall J
New Sci; 2003 Mar; 177(2386):27. PubMed ID: 14587492
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
38. Treating incompetent defendants: the Supreme Court's decision is a tough Sell.
Appelbaum PS
Psychiatr Serv; 2003 Oct; 54(10):1335-6,1341. PubMed ID: 14557516
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
39. Psychiatric advance directives.
Halpern AL
J Am Acad Psychiatry Law; 2006; 34(4):571-2. PubMed ID: 17185490
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
40. Reevaluating substantive due process as a source of protection for psychiatric patients to refuse drugs.
Brooks WM
Indiana Law Rev; 1998; 31(4):937-1017. PubMed ID: 15386905
[No Abstract] [Full Text] [Related]
[Previous] [Next] [New Search]
