When considering the issue of involuntary medication for the purpose of competency restoration treatment, judges have sometimes dictated that only certain medications or dosages are authorized. This commentary proposes that judges should recognize treatment as a fluid process and authorize (or fail to authorize) that process of treatment. When treatment is authorized, specific psychiatric decisions are best made by psychiatrists.
EricksonS.K.CicconeJ.R.SchwarzkopfS.B.LambertiS., & VitaccoM.J. (2007). Legal fallacies of antipsychotic drugs. Journal of American Academy of Psychiatry and Law, 35, 235–246.
3.
GutheilT.G., & AppelbaumP.S. (1983). “Mind control,” “synthetic sanity,” “artificial competence,” and genuine confusion: Legally relevant effects of antipsychotic medication. Hofstra Law Review, 12, 77–120.
4.
Sell v. United States (2003). 539 U.S. 166.
5.
United States v. Evans (2005). 404 F.3d 227.
6.
United States v. Hernandez-Vasquez (2007). 506 F.3d 811.
7.
United States v. Rivera-Guerrero (2005). 377 F.3d 1064.
