FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 350:2297-2301 May 27, 2004 Number 22 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear PubMed Citation

The right to refuse treatment is firmly recognized in U.S. law.¹ Competent persons have the legal right to refuse treatment, even life-sustaining treatment, and incompetent patients can also refuse treatment through an advance directive, by naming a health care agent to make decisions for them or by having a person who knows their wishes express them.²

Competence is a legal construct, not a medical or psychiatric one, and it is task-specific. People can be competent to do one thing (such as refuse medical treatment) but not another (such as stand trial and participate in their own defense). Grisso and Appelbaum . . . [Full Text of this Article]

The Case against Charles Sell

Sell's Mental Condition

Precedents

The Guidelines for Forced Medication

The Decision

The Conflicting Interests

The Role of Physicians

Source Information

From the Department of Health Law, Bioethics, and Human Rights, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston.

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Mossman, D., Noffsinger, S. G., Ash, P., Frierson, R. L., Gerbasi, J., Hackett, M., Lewis, C. F., Pinals, D. A., Scott, C. L., Sieg, K. G., Wall, B. W., Zonana, H. V. (2007). AAPL Practice Guideline for the Forensic Psychiatric Evaluation of Competence to Stand Trial. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 35: S3-S72 [Full Text]  
• Leong, G. B. (2005). Sell v. U.S.: Involuntary Treatment Case or Catalyst for Change?. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 33: 292-294 [Full Text]