Am J Psychiatry 1981; 138:1075-1077
Copyright © 1981 by American Psychiatric Association
Incompetence to refuse treatment: a necessary condition for civil commitment
B Lebegue and LD Clark
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.
