Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned2016-01-08T18:57:31Zen
dc.date.available2016-01-08T18:57:31Zen
dc.date.created1984-09-24en
dc.date.issued1984-09-24en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationCalifornia Reporter 1984; 206: 603-609en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/805011en
dc.description.abstractA Superior Court of California order was overturned by the Court of Appeal's ruling that a higher standard of proof was required to show that the petitioner, a conservatee, did not have the capacity to give written, informed consent to electroconvulsive therapy. The lower court had looked only for a preponderance of the evidence to show incapacity, but the appellate court required proof of the conservatee's lack of capacity to consent by clear and convincing evidence, at least for such intrusive medical procedures. The court recognized the constitutional right of a conservatee to receive effective medical treatment as well as to refuse it. (KIE abstract)en
dc.formatCourt Decisionen
dc.languageenen
dc.publisherCalifornia. Court of Appeal, First Appellate District, Division Oneen
dc.sourceeweb:55181en
dc.subjectConsenten
dc.subjectElectroconvulsive Therapyen
dc.subjectInformed Consenten
dc.subject.classificationElectrical Stimulation of the Brainen
dc.subject.classificationInformed Consent (Bills, Laws, and Cases)en
dc.titleLillian F. v. Superior Court (Santa Clara Valley Medical Center)en
dc.provenanceCitation prepared by the Library and Information Services group of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University for the ETHXWeb database.en
dc.provenanceCitation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named EWEB hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection EthxWeb hosted by DigitalGeorgetown.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2019 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885