Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.
In 1975, the Supreme Court heard the case of O’Connor v Donaldson, in which Kenneth Donaldson disputed the decision of his psychiatrists at the Florida State Hospital to keep him incarcerated for 15 years for a mental illness, though he was not dangerous or receiving treatment. The Donaldson decision pitted activist attorneys against psychiatrists who were increasingly beleaguered in their efforts to assert expertise about mental illness in American society. This case and its context offer a window into the psychiatric and legal conversations within the deinstitutionalization movement. During a time when both psychiatry and the law were shifting in their professional claims and emphases, each side was captured by an idea of reform based on how they imagined the problems to be configured. Examining themes of place, authority, right to treatment, and dangerousness reveals the limitations of the reforms and the hardening of a narrative that limited state action to the elision of mental illness with dangerousness.
American Journal of Legal History – Oxford University Press
Published: Jan 23, 2023
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.