Commentary: Toward Resolving Some Dilemmas Concerning Psychiatric Advance Directives

Dilemmas about when psychiatric advance directives (PADs) should be overridden are complicated by conflicting legal frameworks that may nonetheless operate concurrently—a legal scheme based on decision-making capacity (or competency) set against a legal scheme based on civil commitment, in which the latter may “trump ” the former. A single statute in which the strengths of both schemes are “fused ” may be possible. There is evidence that the promise of PADs in enhancing patients ’ control over their treatment can be achieved without legislation for PADs and where civil commitment is given legal precedence. An example is the “joint crisis plan ” in which, through a negotiation facilitated by an independent third party, a joint agreement is reached between patient and service provider about what treatment should be given when, as a result of a relapse of mental illness, the patient loses the ability to make treatment decisions. This clinical instrument may significantly reduce later involuntary treatment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 34:398–401, 2006 Swanson et al.1 provide a most interesting explora-tion of the grounds for overriding psychiatric ad-vance directives (PADs), both ethical and legal. We will comment on three aspects of advance directive