Search

A challenge has recently been levelled against the legal and/or moral legitimacy of some advance directives. It has been argued that in certain cases an advance directive carries no weight in a decision on whether to withhold treatment, since the individual in the debilitating state is not the same person as the person who created the advance directive. In the first section of this paper, I examine two formulations of the argument against the moral legitimacy of the advance directives under review. The second section reviews, and criticizes, an objection to such arguments. In the penultimate section, possible models supporting the viability of the advance directives are considered. The final section makes good on an obligation incurred by the title of the paper. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article reports on the interaction effects of internal vs. external locus of control and directive vs. nondirective therapy. It examines critically studies that claim that internals are more successful in nondirective therapy and externals in directive therapy. One purpose of the present paper is to review these studies to show that deficiencies either in design, method of statistical analysis, or measures of outcome raise questions as to the real support they lend to the interaction hypothesis.

This article discusses directive psychotherapy. The purpose of, this paper is to discuss the nature, indications and contraindications of methods of therapy involving pressure or coercion. Pressure is defined as the bringing to bear upon the client of stimulation tending to direct action toward specific goals. Coercion involves restraint or regulation by force, usually by law or authority, compelling or constraining the! client to comply with directions. Pressure will usually involve influences which leave ultimate responsibility for conformance up to the client himself, while coercion requires mandatory conformance.