The recent U.S. District Court decision in A.E. and R.R. v. Mitchell
held that psychiatric patients who are civilly committed under the Utah
statute have no constitutional right to refuse treatment for the mental
illness that led to their commitment. This unique law incorporates a
judicial determination of competency to refuse treatment at the time of the
commitment hearing and thus circumvents the objection to involuntary
treatment raised in Rogers v. Okin. A number of psychiatrists have urged
the use of this determination of competency, and recently the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the First Circuit held it to be the sine qua non for the
state's use of parens patriae power in compelling committed patients to
accept neuroleptic medication.Abstract Teaser