Ideological Divarication in Civil Commitment Decision-making

The author argues that fundamental ideological divergence in civil commitment decision-making can be identified by reference to a series of specific points of reference: cases where patients have recently self-harmed, cases where patients have harmed others, personality disorder cases, bipolar affective disorder cases, eating disorder cases and comorbidity cases. He contends that the classification of decision-making at such points as “paternalist” or “civil libertarian” is simplistic but, nonetheless, has a utility in identifying fundamental orientations on the part of clinical and review body decision-makers as well as for facilitating self-aware evaluation of decision-maker temptations and biases.