Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Court suggested in this case that a competent person has the right to refuse if the medication is administered for other than treatment reasons to a person not dangerous or extremely ill, but it accepted the institution's procedures for making such treatment decisions.
Okin that a competent person committed to a psychiatric hospital has the right to refuse treatment in non-emergency situations. The case of Rennie v. Klein established that an involuntarily committed individual has a constitutional right to refuse psychotropic medication without a court order. Rogers v.
An involuntarily committed, legally competent patient who refused medication had a right to professional medical review of the treating psychiatrist's decision. The Court left the decision-making process to medical professionals. 14th 1990 Washington v. Harper: Prisoners have only a very limited right to refuse psychotropic medications in prison.
Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), is a decision in which the United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried.
Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131 (D.N.J. 1978), was a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication. It was the first case to establish that such a patient has the right to refuse medication in ...
The trial court rejected his claim but the State Supreme Court reversed the decision and remanded the case back to the trial court stating that the State could administer antipsychotic medication to a competent, nonconsenting inmate only if, in a judicial hearing, at which the inmate had full adversarial procedural protections, the State could ...
Even at clinics that offer the medication, the upfront costs and budget limitations render it out of reach for the vast majority who come through their doors. But Patrick had insurance, and Anne, with her treatment background, thought she could find a prescribing doctor. “Patrick, we can get you the medication,” Anne told her son.
This decision was one of the first that contributed to a growing body of case law recognizing that prisoners and competent mental patients have the right to refuse treatment. [5] Rogers v. Okin set forth a procedure that would copied by many other states. This procedure requires a court hearing before a patient may be involuntarily medicated. [2]