Supply-side interventions such as prescription drug monitoring programs, “pill mill” laws, and dispensing limits have done little to quell the burgeoning opioid crisis. An increasingly popular demand-side alternative to these measures – now adopted by 38 jurisdictions in the USA and 7 provinces in Canada — is court-mandated involuntary commitment and treatment. In Massachusetts, for example, Part I, Chapter 123, Section 35 of the state's General Laws allows physicians, spouses, relatives, and police officers to petition a court to involuntarily commit and treat a person whose alcohol or drug abuse poses a likelihood of serious harm. This paper explores the ethical underpinnings of this law as a case study for others. First, we highlight the procedural and substantive standards of Section 35 and evaluate the application of the law in practice, including the frequency with which it has been invoked and outcomes. We then use this background to inform an ethical critique of the law. Specifically, we argue that the infringement of autonomy and privacy associated with involuntary intervention under Section 35 is not currently justified on the grounds of a lack of evidenced benefits and a risk of significant of harm. Further ethical concerns also arise from a lack of standard of care provided under the Section 35 pathway. Based on this analysis, we advance four recommendations for change to mitigate these ethical shortcomings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
F.B.Ahmad, L.A.Escobedo, L.M.Rossen, M.R.Spencer, M.Warner, and P.Sutton, “Provisional Drug Overdose Death Counts,”National Center for Health Statistics, 2019, available at <https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/drug-overdose-data.htm> (last visited August 21, 2019)
2.
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, “Key Substance Use and Mental Health Indicators in the United States: Results from the 2018 National Survey on Drug Use and Health,”Rockville, MD: Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, 2019, available at <https://www.samhsa.gov/data/> (last visited August 21, 2019).
3.
C.S.Florence, C.Zhou, F.Luo, and L.Xu, “The Economic Burden of Prescription Opioid Overdose, Abuse, and Dependence in the United States, 2013,”Medical Care54, no. 10 (2016): 901-906.
4.
Special Advisory Committee on the Epidemic of Opioid Overdoses, “National report: Opioid-related Harms in Canada Web-based Report,”Ottawa: Public Health Agency of Canada, December2019, available at <https://health-infobase.canada.ca/substance-related-harms/opioids> (last visited August 21, 2019).
P.P.Christopher, D.A.Pinals, T.Stayton, K.Sanders, and L.Blumberg, “Nature and Utilization of Civil Commitment for Substance Abuse in the United States,”Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law43, no. 3 (2015): 313–320.
8.
A.Pilarinos, P.Kendall, D.Fast, and K.DeBeck, “Secure Care: More Harm than Good,”Canadian Medical Association Journal190, no.4 (2019): E1219-E1220.
John Doe 1, John Doe 2, John Doe 3, John Doe 4, John Doe 5, John Doe 6, John Doe 7, John Doe 8, John Doe 9, John Doe 10 vs. Carol Mici, Commissioner of the Massachusetts Department of Correction, Pamela MacEachern, Superintendent of MASAC at Plymouth, Thomas Turco, Secretary of the Executive Office of Public Safety and Security, Massachusetts Department of Correction; Monica Bharel, Commissioner of the Department of Public Health; Marylou Sudders, Secretary of Health and Human Services; Department of Public Health, Suffolk Superior Court, (2019), available at <https://d279m997dpfwgl.cloudfront.net/wp/2019/03/Section35Complaint.pdf> (last visited December 6, 2019).
D.Werb, A.Kamarulzaman, and M.C.Meacham, “The Effectiveness of Compulsory Drug Treatment: A Systematic Review,”International Journal of Drug Policy28 (2016): 1–9.
25.
M.Wegman, F.Altice, S.Kaur, V.Rajandaran, S.Osornprasop, D.Wilson, D.Wilson, and and A.Kamarulzaman, “Relapse to Opioid Use in Opioid-Dependent Individuals Released from Compulsory Drug Detention Centres Compared with Those from Voluntary Methadone Treatment Centres in Malaysia: A Two-Arm, Prospective Observational Study,”The Lancet Global Health5, no.2 (2017): 198-207.
26.
A.Jain, P.P.Christopher, P.S.Appelbaum, “Civil Commitment for Opioid and Other Substance Use Disorders: Does it Work?”Psychiatric Services69, no. 5 (2018): 374-376.
27.
R.A.Brooks, “Psychiatrists’ Opinions about Involuntary Civil Commitment: Results of a National Survey,”Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law35, no. 2 (2007): 219–228.
28.
A.Anderson, “Involuntary Civil Commitment and Sobriety,”Master of Social Work Clinical Research Papers, Retrieved from Sophia, the St. Catherine University repository website, available at <https://sophia.stkate.edu/msw_papers/703> (last visited October 5, 2020).
R.M.Susan, J.Borum, and J.Petrila, The Effectiveness of Involuntary Outpatient Treatment: Empirical Evidence and the Experience of Eight States (RAND Corporation, 2001).
36.
C.M.Jones and E.F.Mccance-Katz, “Co-Occurring Substance Use and Mental Disorders among Adults with Opioid Use Disorder,”Drug and Alcohol Dependence197 (2019): 78–82.
37.
“Section 35 Commission Report,” supra note 6.
38.
“An Assessment of Opioid Related Deaths in Massachusetts (2013-2014),” supra note 31.
