Comment: Civil Commitment: Guardianship, Substituted Judgment, and Right to Refuse Psychiatric Treatment

One of the most difficult questions facing state government today is whether a civilly committed person has the right to refuse psychiatric treatment. The United States Supreme Court recently recognized in Mills v. Rogers that a person committed involuntarily into a Massachusetts state mental hospital has liberty and privacy interests under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment, but the Court declined the opportunity to create a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric treatment.  Because of this uncertainty, state legislatures are now pondering the question of whether the civilly committed are entitled to a statutory right to refuse psychiatric treatment.

Read More

Scott D. Hughes,  Comment, Civil Commitment: Guardianship, Substituted Judgment, and Right to Refuse Psychiatric Treatment, 20 Gonz. L. Rev. 479 (1985).

Comments are closed.