Beyond "self-paternalism": response to Rosenson and Kasten

Area of Science:

• Mental Health Law
• Bioethics
• Consumer Advocacy

Background:

• Critiques the "Ulysses will" concept for advance psychiatric treatment authorization.
• Proposes "Mill's wills" for comprehensive advance directives regarding psychiatric care.

Discussion:

• Compares mental health advance directives to "living will" statutes and right-to-die cases.
• Asserts that mental health consumers possess legal rights to refuse or consent to psychiatric treatment.
• Highlights legal precedents supporting patient autonomy in medical decision-making.

Key Insights:

• Mental health consumers' rights to refuse psychotropic medication are legally supported.
• "Mill's wills" offer a framework for expressing treatment preferences.
• Legal parity exists between mental health treatment choices and other medical decisions.

Outlook:

• Encourages collaboration among consumers, families, professionals, and advocates.
• Advocates for a unified approach to advance treatment consent and refusal.
• Suggests "Mill's wills" can resolve controversies surrounding psychiatric treatment autonomy.