由於心智障礙者的疾患行為，很可能會對他人或自身造成傷害，進而影響社會安全和公共秩序，就此，國家常以強制治療做為對心智障礙者社會控制的一種方式，但強制治療本身，無論在實質的治療方式和程序上，是否造成心智障礙者的基本權利侵害，不無疑義。某些治療方式，有可能會造成副作用，使心智障礙者的身心受到創傷。其次，關於強制治療的決定程序，部分並未針對心智障礙者本身的特殊狀況，設計適當的配套措施，充分行使訴訟程序權利，就此，人身自由之限制的保障是否健全，應有探討之餘地。
為了探求心智障礙者強制治療和權利保障之間的平衡，本文首先探討就強制治療立論基礎和目前各國相同法規範的爭議，主要將其區分實質面和程序面來討論。接著，再探討目前自主原則的學說理論發展，以找尋一最適合做為心智障礙者自主性之學派─關係式自主(Relational Autonomy)，做為強制治療下權利保障規範之檢視標準。其次，檢視目前國際人權法下，關於強制治療權利保障之法規範和實務見解發展，主要以聯合國人權系統、歐洲人權系統和美洲人權系統，做為探討國際人權法規範發展的核心，再以先前提到最適合自主原則學說做為評判標準，端視目前國際人權法針對強制治療的規範發展是否能保障心智障礙者之基本權利，防範強制治療時對其基本權利的過度侵害。
期望藉由關係式自主和整理目前國際人權法下對於心智障礙者在接受強制治療時，權利保障規範之發展現況，藉此提供給學界一個不一樣的觀點來看待心智障礙者接受強制治療的狀況，也提供國內法界目前國際人權法之發展趨勢現況，以做為國內精神衛生法修法的參考來源。

Some mental disorders could cause the harm to others or self and the disturbance of public security. States take involuntary treatment as a measure of social control out of the reason. But, involuntary treatment may infringe on the fundamental rights of mental disabled in either chosen treatment methods or decisive procedure. Some treatments with side-effects bring about physical and mental injuries. Also, part of the decisive procedure of involuntary treatment cannot protect the liberty of persons with mental disabilities comprehensively due to the ignorance of behavioral nature of the symptoms and the lack of properly specialized measures for them to fully exercise the procedural rights.
To search the balance between involuntary treatment and rights protection, first, the article discussed the controversy of the involuntary treatment in substantial and procedural aspects. Next, the article outlined the development of theories of the principle of autonomy then found out the best one- Relational Autonomy, as the claim of autonomy for mental disabled. Finally, it analyzed the jurisprudence on involuntary treatment under international organization, mainly focused on the United Nations human rights system, European human rights system, and inter-American human rights system, then, concluded whether the current development of law for rights protection under involuntary treatment of international human rights is compatible with the standard on the basis of relational autonomy.
By proposition of relational autonomy and the analysis of current development of the jurisprudence under international human rights law, the article hopes to provide the different perspective to think about the psychiatric involuntary treatment issue and the reference to legislation of domestic Mental Health Law.

英文資料
一、 國際公約
1. American Convention on Human Rights, 18 July, 1978, O.A.S.T.S. No. 36, 1144 U.N.T.S. 123.
2. Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, Art.1, G.A. Res. 39/46, annex, 39 U.N. GAOR Supp. (No. 51) at 197, U.N. Doc. A/39/51 (1984), 1465 U.N.T.S. 85.
3. Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and the Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine,4th Apr 1997, E.T.S 164.
4. Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities, G.A. Res. 61/106, U.N. Doc. A/ RES/61/106 (Dec. 13, 2006),.also see http://www.un.org/disabilities/
5. European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Nov. 4th, 1950, 213 U.N.T.S. 222.
6. Inter-American on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Persons with Disabilities, Organization of American States(OAS), AG/RES. 1608(XX IX-O/99), 7 June 1999.
7. International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,1966, 999 U.N.T.S.171
8. International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, 1966, 993 U.N.T.S.3
二、 宣言、決議
1. American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, O.A.S. Res. XXX, 9th Int'l Conference of American States, O.A.S. Off. Rec., OEA/Ser.L/V./II.23, doc.21 rev.6, 1948.
2. CPT Standards-“Substantive” Section of the CPT’s General Reports, CPT/Inf/E(2002)1-Rev.2004, 2004.
3. Nuremberg Code, Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No.10, Vol 2, Oct. 1946~Apr. 1949, US Government Printing Office (Washington, DC), 1949.
4. PAHO/WHO Regional Office, Declaration of Caracas, 14 Nov. 1990.
5. Recommendation of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (OAS) on Promotion and Protection of the Rights of the Mentally Ill, Annual Report of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR), OEA/Ser./L/V/II.111, doc. 20 rev., 16 April 2001.
6. Recommendation on Principles Concerning the Legal Protection of Incapable Adults, Rec. (99)4, 2004.
7. The Principle for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care, U.N G.A. Res.46/119, 46 U.N. GAOR, Supp. (No.49) at 189, U.N. Doc.A/RES/46/119, Dec. 17, 1991.
8. U.N. Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights, CCPR General Comment No. 20, Replaces general comment 7 concerning prohibition of torture and cruel treatment or punishment, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.1 at 30 (Oct. 3rd, 1992)
9. U.N. Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights, CCPR General Comment No.21, Replaces general comment 9 concerning humane treatment of persons deprived of liberty(Article 10), para.2, U.N. Doc. HRI/GEN/1/Rev.6 at 153, (Oct. 4th, 1992).
10. U.N. Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights, CCPR General Comment No.8, Right to liberty and security of persons (Art. 9),para.1, U.N. Doc. HRI / GEN /1/Rev.6 at 130 (June,30th,1982).
11. U.N. Office of High Commissioner of Human Rights, CESCR General Comment 5, Persons with Disabilities, U.N. Doc. E/1993/22 (Sep. 12th, 1994)
12. UN Declaration on the Rights of Disabled Persons, GA Res. 3447, 1, 130 UN GAOR, Supp (No. 34) 92, UN Doc A/10034 ,1975.
13. UN Standard Rules on the Equalization of Opportunities for Peoples with Disabilities, U.N. G.A. Res. 48/96, para. 17, U.N. GAOR, Annex, Introduction, (1993)
14. Universal Declaration of Human Rights, UN GA Res. 217A(Ⅲ), UN Doc A/810 (Dec. 10th, 1948)
15. World Conference on Human Rights, June 14-25,1993, Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action, U.N. Doc. A/CONF.157/23 (12 July 1993)
三、 案例
a.聯合國人權委員會
1. Griffin v. Spain, Communication No. 493/1992, U.N. Doc.CCPR/ C/53/ D/493 /1992 (4, April, 1995)
2. Hervin Edwards v. Jamaica, Communication No. 529/1993, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/60 /D/529/1993 (28, July, 1997)
3. Portorreal v. Dominican Republic, Communication No. 188/1984, U.N. Doc. CCPR /C/ 31/D/188/1984 (5, November, 1987)
4. Van Alphen v. The Netherlands, Communication No. 305/1988, U.N. Doc. CCPR /C/39/D/305/1988 (1990).
b.歐洲人權法院
1. Aydin v. Turkey, Appl. no. 23178/94, judgment 25 September 1997, 25 EHRR 251.
2. D.N. v. Switzerland, Appl. no. 27154/95, judgment 29 Mar. 2001(2003), 37 EHRR 21.
3. Fox, Campbell and Hartley v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 12244/86; 12245/86; 12383/86, judgment 30 August 1998, A 182(1990), 13 EHRR 157.
4. Gajcsi v. Hungary, Appl. no. 34503/03, judgment 3rd Oct. 2006(2007).
5. Glass v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 61827/00, judgment 9th Mar. 2004, 39 EHRR 15.
6. Herczegfalvy v. Austria, Appl. no. 10533/83, judgment 31 Aug. 1992, 15 EHRR 437.
7. Hutchison Reid v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no.50272/99, judgment 20 May 2003, 37 EHRR 9.
8. Johnson v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 22520/93, judgment 24 October 1997, 27 EHRR 296.
9. Keenan v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 27229/95, judgment 3 April 2001, 33 EHRR 38.
10. Peer v. Greece, Appl. no. 28524/95, judgment 19 April 2001, 33 EHRR 51.
11. Price v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 33394/96, judgment 10 July 2001, 34 EHRR 43.
12. Selmouni v. France, Application No. 25803/94, judgment 28 July 1999(2000), 29 EHRR 403.
13. Van der Leer v. the Netherlands, Appl. no.11509/85, judgment 21 February 1990, 12 EHRR 567.
14. Winterwerp v. The Netherlands, Appl. no. 6301/73, judgment 24 Oct. 1979 (1979-1980), 2 EHRR 387.
15. X v. the United Kingdom, Appl. no. 7215/75, judgment 5 November 1981, 4 EHRR 188.
c.美洲人權法院
1. Gimenez v. Argentina, I/A Court H.R. Series C No.16(1994), 15 HRLJ 168, 2 IHRR 360(1995).
2. Ximenes-Lopes v. Brazil, I/A Court H.R. Series C No.149(2006).
d.美洲人權委員會
1. Jorge A. Giménez v. Argentina, Case 11.245, Report No. 12/96, Inter-Am.C.H.R. OEA/Ser.L/V/ II.91 Doc. 7 at 33 (1996).
2. Victor Congo v. Ecuador, Inter-Am. C.H.R. 61, OEA/Ser/L.V./II., doc 26 (1999)
四、 英文專書
1. AMERICAN PSYCHIATRIC ASSOCIATION, DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS: 4th edition (2005)
2. BARLETT, P., LEWIS, O. & THOROLD,O., MENTAL DISABILITY AND THE EUROPEAN CONVENTION ON HUMAN RIGHTS (2007)
3. CHRISTMAN, J. & ANDERSON, J. ed., AUTONOMY AND THE CHALLENGES TO LIBERALISM (2005)
4. COHEN, S. & SCULL, A., ed., SOCIAL CONTROL AND THE STATE (1983)
5. COHEN, S., VISION OF SOCIAL CONTROL (1985)
6. DWORKIN, G., THE THEORY AND PRACTICE OF AUTONOMY ( 1988)
7. FRIEDMAN, M., AUTONOMY, GENDER, POLITICS (2003)
8. GALLAGHER, J.B., THE SOCIOLOGY OF MENTAL ILLNESS (1987)
9. GRAY,J. C., THE NATURE AND SOURCES OF THE LAW (1909)
10. HOAGLAND, S.L., LESBIAN ETHICS: TOWARD NEW VALUES (1988)
11. JACKSON, E., MEDICAL LAW: TEXT, CASES, AND MATERIALS (2006)
12. JOSEPH, S., SCHULTZ, J. & CASTAN, M., THE INTERNATIONAL COVENANT ON CIVIL AND POLITICAL RIGHTS: CASES, MATERIALS, AND COMMENTARY (2000)
13. MACKENZIE, C. & STOLJAR, N. ed., RELATIONAL AUTONOMY: FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON AUTONOMY, AGENCY, AND THE SOCIAL SELF (2000)
14. MCHALE, J. & FOX, M., HEALTH CARE LAW 2ND EDITION (2007)
15. MEYER, D., SELF, SOCIETY AND PERSONAL CHOICE, (1998)
16. RAWLS, J.，A THEORY OF JUSTICE (2003)
17. REISNER, R., SLOBOGIN,C., RAI,A., LAW AND THE MENTAL HEALTH SYSTEM-CIVIL AND CRIMINAL ASPECTS 4TH EDITION (2004)
18. ROBERT YOUNG, PERSONAL AUTONOMY: BEYOND NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE AUTONOMY(1986 )
19. SHAW, M. N., INTERNAIONAL LAW 4TH EDITION (2000)
20. SHERWIN,S., NO LONGER PATIENT: FEMINIST ETHICS AND HEALTH CARE (1992)
21. STEINER H.J., ALSTON, P. & GOODMAN, R., INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS IN CONTEXT: LAW, POLITICS, MORALS-TEXT AND MATERIALS 3RD EDITION (2008)
22. TOM L. BEAUCHAMP & JAMES F. CHILDRESS, PRINCIPLE OF BIOMEDICAL ETHICS 5TH EDITION (2001)
23. WEINER, A. B. & Wettstein, M. R., LEGAL ISSUES IN MENTAL HEALTH CARE (1993)
24. WOOD, A.W., KANTIAN ETHICS (2008)
25. WORLD HEALTH ORGANIZATION, INTERNATIONAL CLASSIFICATION OF FUNCTIONING, DISABILITY, AND HEALTH (2001)
五、 英文論文集文章
1. Ronald Dworkin, Liberalism in Hamsphire, S. ed., PUBLIC AND PRIVATE MORALITY(1978)
2. Lorraine Code, Second Persons in WHAT CAN SHE KNOW? FEMINIST THEORY AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF KNOWLEDGE(1991)
3. LindaBarclay, Autonomy and Social Self in RELATIONAL AUTONOMY: FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON AUTONOMY, AGENCY AND THE SOCIAL SELF (2000)
4. Carolyn McLeod & Susan Sherwin, Relational Autonomy, Self-trust, and Health Care for Patients Who Are Oppressed in RELATIONAL AUTONOMY: FEMINIST PERSPECTIVES ON AUTONOMY, AGENCY AND THE SOCIAL SELF (2000)
5. Theresia Degener, Disability as a Subject of International Human Rights Law and Comparative Discrimination Law in THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES - DIFFERENT BUT EQUAL (Stanley S. Herr, Lawrence O. Gostin, etc. ed.) (2003).
6. Austen Garwood-Gowers, The Right to Bodily Security vis-à-vis the Needs to Others in AUTONOMY AND HUMAN RIGHTS(David N. Weisstub & Guillermo Díaz Pintos ed.) (2007)
7. Dinah Shelton, Introduction :Law, Non-law, and the Problem of “Soft Law” in COMMITMENT AND COMPLIANCE: THE ROLE OF NON-BINDING NORMS IN THE INTERNATIONAL LEGAL SYSTEM(2000)
8. Gerard Quinn, The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in HUMAN RIGHTS AND DISABLED PERSONS(1995)
9. David Harris, Regional Protection of Human Rights: The Inter-American Achievement in THE INTER-AMERICAN OF HUMAN RIGHTS SYSTEM(1998)
六、 英文期刊文章
1. A. M. Capron, Informed Consent in Catastrophic Disease Research and Treatment, 123. U. Pa. L. Rev. 340(1974)
2. A. Schafer, The Right of Institutionalized Psychiatric Patients to Refuse Treatment, Can Ment. Health, Vol..33, No.3 (1985).
3. Aaron A. Dhir, Human Rights Treaty Drafting through the Lens of Mental Disability: The Proposed International Convention on Protection and Promotion of the Rights and Dignity of Persons with Disabilities, 41 Stan. J. Int'l L. 181, (2005)
4. Alison A. Hillman, Protecting Mental Disability Rights: A Success Story in the Inter-American Human Rights System, 12 No. 3 Hum. Rts. Brief 25 (2005)
5. Ann Hubbard, The ADA, The Workplace, and the Myth of the “Dangerous Mentally Ill”, 34 U.C. Davis L. Rev. 849 (2000-2001)
6. Arlene S. Kanter, The Globalization of Disability Rights Law, 30 Syracuse J. Int'l. L. & Com. 241 (2003)
7. Barbara Secker, The Appearance of Kant’s Deontology in Contemporary Kantianism: Concepts of Patient Autonomy in Bioethics, Journal of Medicine and Philosophy, Vol. 24, No.1 (1999)
8. Bernice A. Pescosolido &John Monaham, etc., The Public View of the Competence, Dangerousness, and Need for Legal Coercion of Person with Mental Health Problems, Am J Public Health, Vol. 89, No.9 (1999)
9. Bruce G. Link & Francis T. Cullen, Contact with the Mentally Ill and Perceptions of How Dangerous They Are, Journal of Health and Social Behavior, Vol.27 (1986)
10. Bruce J. Winick, Ambiguities in the Legal Meaning and Significance of Mental Illness, 1 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 534 (1995)
11. Bruce J. Winick, The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: First Amendment Perspective, 44 U. Miami L. Rev. 1 (1989)
12. Bruce J. Winick, Therapeutic Jurisprudence and the Treatment of People with Mental Illness in Eastern Europe: Construing International Human Rights Law, 21 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 537 (2002)
13. Carlos A. Ball, This Is Not Your Father’s Autonomy: Lesbian and Gay Rights From A Feminist and Relational Perspective, 28 Harv. J. L. & Gender 345 (2005)
14. Caroline Gendreau, The Rights of Psychiatric Patients in the Rghts of Principle Announced by the United Nations: A Recognition of the Right to Consent to Treatment? 20. Int’l J.L & Psychiatry 259 (1997)
15. Christopher Slobogin, A Jurisprudenc of Dangerousness, 98 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1, (2003)
16. Dannette Marie & Brad Miles, Social Distance and Perceived Dangerousness across Four Diagnostic Categories of Mental Disorder, Aust. N. Z. J. Psychiatry, No.42 (2008)
17. David B. Stein & Robert Foltz, The Need to Operationally Define ”Disease” in Psychiatry and Psychology, Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 11, No. 2 (2009)
18. David Kingdon, Roland Jones, Jouko Lönnqvist, Protecting the Human Rights of People With Mental Disorder: New Recommendations Emerging From the Council of Europe, 185 Brit. J. Psychiatry 277 (2004)
19. Dennis E. Cichon, The Right To “Just Say No”: A History and Analysis of the Right to Refuse Antipsychiatric drugs, 53 La. L. Rev. 283 (1992)
20. Development in Law: Civil Commitment of the Mental lll, 87 Harv. L. Rev. 1190 (1974).
21. Edward L. Rubin, Generalizing The Trial Model of Procedural Due Process: A New Basis for The Right to The Treatment, 17 Harv. C.R.-C.L. L. Rev. 61(1982)
22. Eric Engle, Universal Human Rights: A Generational History, 12 Ann. Surv. Int'l & Comp. L. 219(2006)
23. Eric S. Janus, Toward a Conceptual Framework for Assessing Police Power Commitment Legislation: A Critique of Schopp’s and Winick’s Explication of Legal Mental Illness, 76 Neb. L. Rev. 1(1997)
24. Erin Rosenthal & Clarence J. Sundram, International Human Rights in Mental Health Legislation, 21 N.Y.L. Sch. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 469, (2002)
25. Fernando R. Tesón, The Kantian Theory of International Law, 92 Colum. L. Rev. 53 (1992).
26. Harold I. Schwartz et al., Autonomy and the Right to Refuse Treatment: Patients' Attitudes After Involuntary Medication, 39 Hosp. & Community Psychiatry 1049 (1988)
27. Helen Lester & Jonathan Q. Tritter, “Listen to My Madness”: Understanding the Experience of People with Serious Mental Illness, 27 Soc. Health & Illness 649 (2005)
28. I. Levav, R. González Uzcátegui, Rights of Persons With Mental Illness in Central America, 101 Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 83 (2000)
29. Jed Rubenfeld, Unilateralism and Constitutionalism, 79 N.Y.U.L. Rev. 1971 (2004)
30. Jeffrey Draine & Mark S. Salzer etc., Role of Social Disadvantage in Crime, Joblessness, and Homelessness Among Persons With Serious Mental Illness, Psychiatry Serv. 53, No.3 (2002)
31. Jenifer Fischer, A Comparative Look at the Right to Refuse Treatment for Involuntarily Hospitalized Persons with a Mental Illness, 29 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 153 (2006)
32. Jennifer Colangelo, The Right to Refuse Treatment for Mental Illness, 5 Rutgers J. L. & Pub. Pol'y 492(2008)
33. John Harris, The Ethics of Clinical Research with Cognitively Impaired Subjects, Ital. J. Neurol. Sci Suppl 5 (1977)
34. Joseph M. Livermore, Carl P. Malmquist & Paul E. Meehl, On the Justification for Civil Commitment, 117 U. Pa. L. Rev. 75 (1968)
35. Jules Holroyd, Relational Autonomy and Paternalistic Intervention, Res Publica, Vol. 15 (2009)
36. Kevin S. Douglas, Stephen D. Hart & Laura S. Guy, Psychosis as A Factor for Violence to Others: A Meta-Analysis, Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 135, No.5 (2009)
37. Kim Treiger-Bar-Am, In defense of Autonomy：An Ethic of Care, 3 N.Y.U. J. L. & Liberty 548 (2008)
38. Lance Gable, Javier Vásquez etc., Mental health and due process in the Americas: protecting the human rights of persons involuntarily admitted to and detained in psychiatric institutions, Pan Am J Public Health 18(4/5) (2005)
39. Louis B. Sohn, The New International Law: Protection of the Rights of Individuals Rather than States, 32 Am. U. L. Rev. 1 (1997)
40. M. Gupta, Treatment Refusal in the Involuntarily Hospitalized Psychiatric Population Canadian Policies and Practice, 20 Med. & L. 245 (2001)
41. Marion A. Verkerk, The Care Perspective and Autonomy, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy Vol.4, No.3 (2001)
42. Michael Ashley Stein, Disability Human Rights, 95 Cal. L. Rev. 75 (2007)
43. Michael Perlin, On”Sanism”, 46 SMU L. Rev. 373 (1992)
44. Norman L. Cantor, The Relation between Autonomy-Based Rights and Profoundly Mentally Disabled Persons, Annals of Health Law (2004)
45. Paul S. Appelbaum & Thomas Grisso, The MacArthur Treatment Competence StudyⅠ-Mental Illness and Competence to Consent to Treatment, Law and human behavior, vol.19, No.2 (1995)
46. Peter Barlett, The Test of Compulsion in Mental Health Law: Capacity, The Therapeutic Benefit, and Dangerousness as Possible Criteria, 11 Med. L. Rev. 326 (2003)
47. Raanan Gillon, Ethic Needs Principle-Four can Encompass the Rest-and Respect for Autonomy Should Be “First among Equal”, Journal of Medical Ethic, Vol.29 (2003)
48. Rachael Anderson-Watts, Recognizing Our Dangerous Gifts: Applying the Social Model to Individual with Mental Illness, 12 Mich. St. U. J. Med. & L. 141 (2008)
49. Robert C. Ellickson, Controlling Chronic Misconduct in City Spaces: of Panhandlers, Skid Rows, and Public-Space Zoning, 105 Yale L.J. 1165 (1996)
50. Robert D. Miller, The Continum of Coercion: Constitutional and Clinical Considerations in the Treatment of Mentally Disordered Persons, 74 Denv. U. L. Rev. 1169 (1997)
51. Robert F. Schopp, Sexual Predators and The Structure of The Mental Health System: Expanding The Normative Focus of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, 1 Psychol. Pub. Pol'y & L. 161 (1995)
52. Robert S. Berger, The Psychiatric Expert as Due Process Decisionmaker, 33 Buff. L. Rev. 681(1984)
53. Rosemary Kayees & Phillip French, Out of Darkness into Light? Introducing the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, 8 Hum. Rts. L. Rev. 1 (2008)
54. Samuel Jan Brakel & John M. Davis, Taking Harm Seriously: Involuntary Mental Patient and the Right to Refuse Treatment, 25 Ind. L. Rev. 429 (1991)
55. Stephen J. Morse, A Preference for Liberty: The Case Against Involuntary Commitment of the Mentally Disordered, 70 Cal. L. Rev. 54 (1982)
56. Thomas G. Gutheil, In Search of True Freedom: Drug Refusal, Involuntary Medication, and“Rotting with Your Rights On,” 137 Am. J. Psychiatry 327 (1980)
七、 英文網站
1. Salize, H.J.; Dreßing, H.; & Peitz, M. (Eds.) (2002) Compulsory admission and involuntary treatment of mentally ill patients—legislation and practice in eu-member states: final report. Mannheim, Germany: Central Institute of Mental Health. Available at
http://europa.eu.int/comm/health/ph_projects/2000/promotion/fp_promotion_2000_frep_08_en.pdf, accessed Mar. 15, 2010
2. the oath of Hippocrates, http://www.nlm.nih.gov/hmd/greek/greek_oath.html , last accessed at Sep. 5th, 2010.
3. Helsinki Declaration, http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3/index.html, last access at Apr. 16th,2010.
4. International Ethical Guidelines for Biomedical Research Involving Human Subjects, 見http://www.cioms.ch/publications/guidelines/guidelines_nov_2002_blurb.htm, accessed at July, 30th,2010.
5. Pan American Health Organization, Disability: Prevention and Rehabilitation in the Context of the Right to the Enjoyment of the Highest Attainable Standard of Physical and Mental Health and Other Related Rights, 2006 Sept 25-29, Available from: URL:http://www.paho.org/english/gov/cd/CD47.r1-e.pdf. last accessed at Aug. 26th , 2010.
6. MDRI, http://www.mdri.org/mdri-web-2007/projects/americas/paraguay/index.htm, last accessed at Aug. 28th, 2010.
7. 2003 Precautionary Measure of IACHR, http://www.cidh.org/medidas/2003.eng.htm , last accessed at Aug. 28th,2010.