The legal history and current developments in the right to refuse antipsychotic medication are reviewed. In Washington v. Harper the US Supreme Court analyzed the right to refuse antipsychotic medication under the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution. A narrow issue was clarified but substantial uncertainty remains. As a result, law and policy problems at both state and institutional levels have become evident and may need to be addressed by drug policy decision makers.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
See fn. 4 and 5.
2.
Washington v. Harper 58 U.S. Law Week 4249 (1990).
3.
58 U.S.L.W. at 4253.
4.
Id. at 4257, fn. 4.
5.
Id. at 4253.
6.
Id. at 4254.
7.
Id. at 4257, fn. 3.
8.
Id. at 4258, quoting in re Guardianship of Roe, 421 NE2d 40, 53 (Mass. 1981).
9.
Natanson v. Klein, 354 P2d 670 (Kan. 1960).
10.
Rennie v. Klein, 462 F.Supp. 1131 (D.N.J. 1978).
11.
Rogers v. Okin, 478 F.Supp. 1342 (D.Mass. 1979).
12.
Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (1982).
13.
Rennie v. Klein, 458 U.S. 1119 (1982).
14.
Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 305 (1982).
15.
457 U.S. at 323.
16.
Id. at 323.
17.
BlackburnCE. The “therapeutic orgy” and the “right to rot” collide: The right to refuse antipsychotic drugs under state law. Houston Law Rev1990; 27: 447–573.
18.
457 U.S. at 300.
19.
58 U.S.L.W. at 4253.
20.
Cruzan v. Missouri, 58 U.S.L.W. 4916 (1990).
21.
Murdock v. Memphis, 87 U.S. (20 Wall.) 590 (1874).
