NCJ Number
130049
Journal
Federal Prisons Journal Volume: 2 Issue: 1 Dated: (Winter 1991) Pages: 24-29
Date Published
1991
Length
6 pages
Annotation
The debate over when mentally ill inmates can be medicated against their will is generally divided between those who stress the benefits of such treatment and those who fear the serious side effects that may accompany some of the medications used.
Abstract
The key issue in the debate involves the obligation of mental health professionals to ensure that a mentally ill person has the capacity to provide an informed consent for admission to a hospital or to be medicated voluntarily. This issue affects both the quality of mental health care and the potential legal liability of those who treat the mentally ill, whether in a prison or a civilian psychiatric hospital. The real debate is over the risks and benefits of antipsychotic medication, and the U.S. Supreme Court has determined that this should be decided by mental health professionals. The narrow holding of the Supreme Court is that dangerous inmates may be medicated against their will when such treatment is found by mental health professionals to be in their best medical interests. The Supreme Court decision, however, has both procedural and substantive components, and it appears that there may be other circumstances under which medication may be involuntarily administered to a hospitalized inmate. An argument can be made that involuntary medication may be authorized in certain circumstances to help even a nonviolent inmate regain competence to stand trial. A patient who desires admission and treatment but who is incompetent to consent to such treatment may not be treated, and mental health professionals will run the risk of personal liability if they fail to consider whether the patient is competent to make certain decisions. 8 notes