Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Health Law and Policy (205)
- Jurisprudence (191)
- Law and Psychology (191)
- Food and Drug Law (190)
- Other Law (190)
-
- Law and Society (189)
- Constitutional Law (187)
- Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility (187)
- Legislation (187)
- Litigation (187)
- Torts (187)
- Consumer Protection Law (186)
- Criminal Law (186)
- Insurance Law (186)
- Legal Education (186)
- State and Local Government Law (186)
- Civil Law (185)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (185)
- Courts (185)
- Disability Law (185)
- Family Law (185)
- Labor and Employment Law (185)
- Legal History (185)
- Retirement Security Law (185)
- Science and Technology Law (185)
- Social Welfare Law (185)
- Common Law (184)
- Conflict of Laws (184)
- Keyword
-
- Law (13)
- SFFA (7)
- Affirmative Action (6)
- ESG (6)
- Washington (6)
-
- Diversity (5)
- Securities and exchange commission (5)
- Addiction (4)
- Artificial intelligence (4)
- Hospital (4)
- Psychology (4)
- Public health (4)
- Regulation (4)
- SEC (4)
- Technology (4)
- Constitution (3)
- Corporate (3)
- Corporate Governance (3)
- Data (3)
- Discrimination (3)
- Ethics (3)
- Federalism (3)
- First Amendment (3)
- Mental Health (3)
- Mental health (3)
- Mental illness (3)
- Negligence (3)
- Privacy (3)
- Reform (3)
- Sec (3)
Articles 211 - 211 of 211
Full-Text Articles in Medical Jurisprudence
Substituted Judgment And The Right To Refuse Shock Treatment In Washington: In Re Schuoler, Gregory S. Marshall
Substituted Judgment And The Right To Refuse Shock Treatment In Washington: In Re Schuoler, Gregory S. Marshall
Seattle University Law Review
This Note will first analyze and evaluate two competing decision-making models established in other jurisdictions. The Note will then apply that analysis to Schuoler and critically evaluate that decision. The Note will conclude that while the Washington court follows the more appropriate judicial substituted judgment model, its poor articulation of that model may defeat the purpose of the decision: to protect a mental patient's right to refuse ECT.