Describes the process of civil commitment. Defines competence to stand trial. Compares the laws regarding the “insanity defense.” Explains how mental health practitioners protect patients’ rights, including the right to treatment and the right to refuse treatment.

The chapter will cover possible ways to ensure universal health access for people with psychosis, primarily through a comparison between the USA and Denmark healthcare systems. The chapter will discuss the utility of employing national clinical treatment guidelines, treatment rights, treatment packages, supervision, and fidelity rating when ensuring high quality treatment for psychosis. Denmark is one of many developed nations whose healthcare and sociopolitical contingencies support a completely different approach to psychosis compared to the USA. Incarceration, barriers to care, and health outcomes in the USA demonstrate an inarguably inadequate approach to psychosis. Based on the same evidence, other nations built imperfect but substantially more effective approaches. By illustrating a Scandinavian approach to psychosis and its successes and pitfalls, we highlight the feasibility of effective support and recovery for people with psychosis, as well as the necessity of long-term investments in citizens’ health and learning from successes and failures.