washington
harper
argued
october
decided
february
respondent
harper
ward
washington
state
penal
system
since
robbery
conviction
inmate
temporarily
parole
received
psychiatric
treatment
including
consensual
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
engaged
violent
conduct
condition
deteriorated
take
drugs
two
occasions
transferred
special
offender
center
soc
center
state
institute
convicted
felons
serious
mental
illness
diagnosed
suffering
disorder
center
required
take
antipsychotic
drugs
pursuant
soc
policy
policy
provides
inter
alia
psychiatrist
orders
medication
inmate
may
involuntarily
treated
suffers
mental
disorder
gravely
disabled
poses
likelihood
serious
harm
others
hearing
upon
finding
conditions
met
special
committee
consisting
psychiatrist
psychologist
center
official
none
may
currently
involved
inmate
diagnosis
treatment
may
order
involuntary
medication
psychiatrist
majority
inmate
right
notice
hearing
right
attend
present
evidence
witnesses
right
representation
disinterested
lay
adviser
versed
psychological
issues
right
appeal
center
superintendent
right
periodic
review
involuntary
medication
ordered
addition
state
law
gives
right
review
committee
decision
involuntary
treatment
proceedings
conducted
accordance
soc
policy
second
stay
center
transfer
state
penitentiary
harper
filed
suit
state
trial
rejected
claim
failure
provide
judicial
hearing
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
medication
violated
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
state
reversed
remanded
concluding
clause
state
administer
medication
competent
nonconsenting
inmate
judicial
hearing
inmate
full
panoply
adversarial
procedural
protections
state
proved
clear
cogent
convincing
evidence
medication
necessary
effective
furthering
compelling
state
interest
held
case
rendered
moot
fact
state
ceased
administering
antipsychotic
drugs
harper
live
case
controversy
remains
since
evidence
harper
recovered
mental
illness
continues
serve
sentence
state
prison
system
strong
likelihood
may
transferred
center
officials
seek
administer
antipsychotic
medication
pursuant
policy
thus
alleged
injury
likely
recur
decision
state
pp
due
process
clause
permits
state
treat
prison
inmate
serious
mental
illness
antipsychotic
drugs
dangerous
others
treatment
medical
interest
although
harper
liberty
interest
clause
free
arbitrary
administration
medication
policy
comports
substantive
due
process
requirements
since
reasonably
related
state
legitimate
interest
combating
danger
posed
violent
mentally
ill
inmate
policy
rational
means
furthering
interest
since
applies
exclusively
mentally
ill
inmates
gravely
disabled
represent
significant
danger
others
drugs
may
administered
treatment
direction
licensed
psychiatrist
little
dispute
psychiatric
profession
proper
use
drugs
effective
means
treating
controlling
mental
illness
likely
cause
violent
behavior
harper
contention
precondition
antipsychotic
drug
treatment
state
must
find
incompetent
obtain
approval
treatment
using
substituted
judgment
standard
rejected
since
take
account
state
legitimate
interest
treating
medically
appropriate
purpose
reducing
danger
poses
similarly
shown
alternatives
physical
restraints
seclusion
accommodate
rights
de
minimis
cost
valid
penological
interests
pp
policy
administrative
hearing
procedures
comport
procedural
due
process
pp
due
process
clause
require
judicial
hearing
state
may
treat
mentally
ill
prisoner
antipsychotic
drugs
harper
insubstantial
liberty
interest
considered
government
interests
involved
efficacy
particular
procedural
requirements
adequately
protected
perhaps
better
served
allowing
decision
medicate
made
medical
professionals
rather
judge
assumed
mentally
disturbed
patient
intentions
substituted
judgment
approximating
intentions
determined
single
judicial
hearing
apart
realities
frequent
ongoing
medical
observation
ignored
requiring
judicial
hearings
divert
scarce
prison
resources
care
treatment
mentally
ill
inmates
moreover
risks
associated
antipsychotic
drugs
part
medical
ones
best
assessed
medical
professionals
policy
contains
adequate
procedural
safeguards
ensure
prisoner
interests
taken
account
particular
independence
decisionmaker
adequately
addressed
since
none
hearing
committee
members
may
involved
inmate
current
treatment
diagnosis
record
devoid
evidence
staff
members
lack
necessary
independence
provide
full
fair
hearing
pp
policy
procedures
satisfy
due
process
requirements
respects
provisions
mandating
notice
specified
hearing
rights
satisfy
requirement
meaningful
opportunity
heard
vitiated
prehearing
meetings
committee
members
staff
absent
evidence
resulting
bias
actual
decision
made
hearing
hearing
need
conducted
accordance
rules
evidence
state
clear
cogent
convincing
standard
proof
neither
required
helpful
medical
personnel
making
judgment
required
policy
inmate
may
obtain
judicial
review
committee
decision
trial
found
record
compiled
policy
adequate
allow
review
policy
deficient
allowing
representation
counsel
since
provision
independent
lay
adviser
understands
psychiatric
issues
sufficient
protection
given
medical
nature
decision
made
pp
kennedy
delivered
opinion
unanimous
respect
part
ii
opinion
respect
parts
iii
iv
rehnquist
white
blackmun
scalia
joined
blackmun
filed
concurring
opinion
post
stevens
filed
opinion
concurring
part
dissenting
part
brennan
marshall
joined
post
william
williams
senior
assistant
attorney
general
washington
argued
cause
petitioners
briefs
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
glenn
harvey
assistant
attorney
general
paul
larkin
argued
cause
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
brief
william
bryson
acting
solicitor
general
brian
reed
phillips
appointment
argued
cause
respondent
brief
leonard
rubenstein
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
reversal
filed
state
california
john
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
richard
iglehart
chief
assistant
attorney
general
kenneth
young
assistant
attorney
general
kristofer
jorstad
senior
supervising
deputy
attorney
general
morris
lenk
karl
mayer
bruce
slavin
deputy
attorneys
general
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
joel
klein
robert
luskin
briefs
amici
curiae
urging
affirmance
filed
mental
health
legal
advisors
committee
massachusetts
judicial
et
al
stan
goldman
robert
fleischner
steven
schwartz
national
association
protection
advocacy
systems
et
al
arthur
rosenberg
new
jersey
department
public
advocate
linda
rosenzweig
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
american
psychological
association
clifford
stromberg
john
roberts
coalition
fundamental
rights
equality
peter
margulies
washington
community
mental
health
council
et
al
barbara
weiner
justice
kennedy
delivered
opinion
central
question
us
whether
judicial
hearing
required
state
may
treat
mentally
ill
prisoner
antipsychotic
drugs
resolution
case
requires
us
discuss
protections
afforded
prisoner
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
respondent
walter
harper
sentenced
prison
robbery
incarcerated
washington
state
penitentiary
time
respondent
housed
prison
mental
health
unit
consented
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
antipsychotic
drugs
sometimes
called
neuroleptics
psychotropic
drugs
medications
commonly
used
treating
mental
disorders
schizophrenia
brief
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
amici
curiae
found
trial
effect
similar
drugs
alter
chemical
balance
brain
desired
result
medication
assist
patient
organizing
thought
processes
regaining
rational
state
mind
see
app
pet
cert
respondent
paroled
condition
participate
psychiatric
treatment
parole
continued
receive
treatment
psychiatric
ward
harborview
medical
center
seattle
washington
later
sent
western
state
hospital
pursuant
civil
commitment
order
december
state
revoked
respondent
parole
assaulted
two
nurses
hospital
seattle
upon
return
prison
respondent
sent
special
offender
center
soc
center
correctional
institute
established
washington
department
corrections
diagnose
treat
convicted
felons
serious
mental
disorders
center
psychiatrists
first
diagnosed
respondent
suffering
disorder
first
respondent
gave
voluntary
consent
treatment
including
administration
antipsychotic
medications
november
refused
continue
taking
prescribed
medications
treating
physician
sought
medicate
respondent
objections
pursuant
soc
policy
policy
developed
partial
response
decision
vitek
jones
policy
several
substantive
procedural
components
first
psychiatrist
determines
inmate
treated
antipsychotic
drugs
inmate
consent
inmate
may
subjected
involuntary
treatment
drugs
suffers
mental
disorder
gravely
disabled
poses
likelihood
serious
harm
others
property
psychiatrist
may
order
approve
medication
second
inmate
refuses
take
medication
voluntarily
entitled
hearing
special
committee
consisting
psychiatrist
psychologist
associate
superintendent
center
none
may
time
hearing
involved
inmate
treatment
diagnosis
committee
determines
majority
vote
inmate
suffers
mental
disorder
gravely
disabled
dangerous
inmate
may
medicated
provided
psychiatrist
majority
third
inmate
certain
procedural
rights
hearing
must
given
least
hours
notice
center
intent
convene
involuntary
medication
hearing
time
may
medicated
addition
must
receive
notice
tentative
diagnosis
factual
basis
diagnosis
staff
believes
medication
necessary
hearing
inmate
right
attend
present
evidence
including
witnesses
staff
witnesses
assistance
lay
adviser
involved
case
understands
psychiatric
issues
involved
minutes
hearing
must
kept
copy
provided
inmate
inmate
right
appeal
committee
decision
superintendent
center
within
hours
superintendent
must
decide
appeal
within
hours
receipt
see
app
pet
cert
inmate
may
seek
judicial
review
committee
decision
state
means
personal
restraint
petition
extraordinary
writ
see
rules
app
proc
app
pet
cert
fourth
initial
hearing
involuntary
medication
continue
periodic
review
respondent
first
refused
medication
committee
composed
nontreating
psychiatrist
psychologist
center
associate
superintendent
required
review
inmate
case
first
seven
days
treatment
committee
reapproved
treatment
treating
psychiatrist
required
review
case
prepare
report
department
corrections
medical
director
every
days
treatment
continued
case
respondent
absent
members
center
staff
met
committee
hearing
committee
conducted
hearing
accordance
policy
respondent
present
assisted
nurse
practitioner
another
institution
committee
found
respondent
danger
others
result
mental
disease
disorder
approved
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
appeal
superintendent
upheld
committee
findings
beginning
november
respondent
involuntarily
medicated
one
year
periodic
review
occurred
accordance
policy
november
respondent
transferred
center
washington
state
reformatory
took
medication
result
condition
deteriorated
retransferred
center
one
month
respondent
subject
another
committee
hearing
accordance
policy
committee
approved
medication
respondent
continued
receive
antipsychotic
drugs
subject
required
periodic
reviews
transferred
washington
state
penitentiary
june
february
respondent
filed
suit
state
ed
various
individual
defendants
state
claiming
failure
provide
judicial
hearing
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
medication
violated
due
process
equal
protection
free
speech
clauses
federal
state
constitutions
well
state
tort
law
sought
damages
declaratory
injunctive
relief
bench
trial
march
held
although
respondent
liberty
interest
subjected
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
medication
procedures
contained
policy
met
requirements
due
process
stated
vitek
appeal
washington
reversed
remanded
case
trial
agreeing
trial
respondent
liberty
interest
refusing
antipsychotic
medications
concluded
highly
intrusive
nature
treatment
antipsychotic
medications
warranted
greater
procedural
protections
necessary
protect
liberty
interests
stake
vitek
held
due
process
clause
state
administer
antipsychotic
medication
competent
nonconsenting
inmate
judicial
hearing
inmate
full
panoply
adversarial
procedural
protections
state
proved
clear
cogent
convincing
evidence
administration
antipsychotic
medication
necessary
effective
furthering
compelling
state
interest
granted
certiorari
reverse
ii
respondent
contends
state
ceased
administering
antipsychotic
drugs
case
moot
disagree
even
confine
attention
facts
found
record
live
case
controversy
parties
remains
evidence
respondent
recovered
mental
illness
since
sentenced
prison
diagnosed
treated
serious
mental
disorder
even
parole
respondent
continued
receive
treatment
one
point
civil
commitment
order
state
mental
hospitals
time
trial
transfer
center
second
time
respondent
still
diagnosed
suffering
schizophrenia
respondent
continues
serve
sentence
washington
state
prison
system
subject
transfer
center
time
given
medical
history
fact
transferred
twice
center
state
penal
institutions
period
reasonable
conclude
strong
likelihood
respondent
may
transferred
center
given
medical
history
likely
absent
holding
washington
center
officials
seek
administer
antipsychotic
medications
pursuant
policy
record
us
case
moot
alleged
injury
likely
recur
decision
washington
sufficiently
overcomes
claim
mootness
circumstances
case
precedents
see
vitek
iii
washington
gave
primary
attention
procedural
component
due
process
clause
phrased
issue
whether
prisoner
entitled
judicial
hearing
antipsychotic
drugs
administered
however
establish
judicial
procedures
making
factual
determinations
called
policy
required
different
set
determinations
set
forth
policy
made
precondition
medication
without
inmate
consent
instead
prove
pursuant
policy
mentally
ill
inmate
gravely
disabled
presents
serious
likelihood
harm
others
required
state
prove
compelling
interest
administering
medication
administration
drugs
necessary
effective
interest
decisionmaker
required
consider
make
written
findings
regarding
either
inmate
desires
substituted
judgment
inmate
analogous
medical
treatment
decision
incompetent
person
washington
decision
result
substantive
procedural
aspects
axiomatic
procedural
protections
must
examined
terms
substantive
rights
stake
identifying
contours
substantive
right
remains
task
distinct
deciding
procedural
protections
necessary
protect
right
substantive
issue
involves
definition
th
protected
constitutional
interest
well
identification
conditions
competing
state
interests
might
outweigh
procedural
issue
concerns
minimum
procedures
required
constitution
determining
individual
liberty
interest
actually
outweighed
particular
instance
mills
rogers
citations
omitted
restated
terms
case
substantive
issue
factual
circumstances
must
exist
state
may
administer
antipsychotic
drugs
prisoner
procedural
issue
whether
state
nonjudicial
mechanisms
used
determine
facts
particular
case
sufficient
washington
effect
ruled
upon
substance
inmate
right
well
procedural
guarantees
encompassed
grant
certiorari
address
questions
beginning
substantive
one
matter
state
law
policy
undoubtedly
confers
upon
respondent
right
free
arbitrary
administration
antipsychotic
medication
hewitt
helms
held
pennsylvania
created
protected
liberty
interest
part
prison
inmates
avoid
administrative
segregation
enacting
regulations
used
language
unmistakably
mandatory
character
requiring
certain
procedures
shall
must
employed
administrative
segregation
occur
absent
specified
substantive
predicates
need
control
threat
serious
disturbance
citations
omitted
policy
similarly
mandatory
character
permitting
psychiatrist
treat
inmate
antipsychotic
drugs
wishes
found
mentally
ill
gravely
disabled
dangerous
policy
creates
justifiable
expectation
part
inmate
drugs
administered
unless
conditions
exist
see
also
vitek
doubt
addition
liberty
interest
created
state
policy
respondent
possesses
significant
liberty
interest
avoiding
unwanted
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
due
process
clause
fourteenth
amendment
see
youngberg
romeo
parham
upon
full
consideration
state
administrative
scheme
however
find
due
process
clause
confers
upon
respondent
greater
right
recognized
state
law
respondent
contends
state
mandate
due
process
clause
may
override
choice
refuse
antipsychotic
drugs
unless
found
incompetent
factfinder
makes
substituted
judgment
competent
consent
drug
treatment
disagree
extent
prisoner
right
clause
avoid
unwanted
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
must
defined
context
inmate
confinement
policy
review
requires
state
establish
medical
finding
mental
disorder
exists
likely
cause
harm
treated
moreover
fact
medication
must
first
prescribed
psychiatrist
approved
reviewing
psychiatrist
ensures
treatment
question
ordered
prisoner
medical
interests
given
legitimate
needs
institutional
confinement
standards
recognize
prisoner
medical
interests
state
interests
meet
demands
due
process
clause
legitimacy
necessity
considering
state
interests
prison
safety
security
well
established
cases
turner
safley
estate
shabazz
held
proper
standard
determining
validity
prison
regulation
claimed
infringe
inmate
constitutional
rights
ask
whether
regulation
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
interests
turner
supra
true
even
constitutional
right
claimed
infringed
fundamental
state
circumstances
required
satisfy
rigorous
standard
review
estate
shabazz
supra
washington
declined
apply
standard
review
center
policy
reasoning
liberty
interest
present
distinguishable
first
amendment
rights
issue
turner
estate
shabazz
erred
refusing
apply
standard
reasonableness
earlier
determination
adopt
standard
review
based
upon
need
reconcile
longstanding
adherence
principle
inmates
retain
least
constitutional
rights
despite
incarceration
recognition
prison
authorities
best
equipped
make
difficult
decisions
regarding
prison
administration
turner
supra
jones
north
carolina
prisoners
labor
union
two
principles
apply
cases
prisoner
asserts
prison
regulation
violates
constitution
prisoner
invokes
first
amendment
made
quite
clear
standard
review
adopted
turner
applies
circumstances
needs
prison
administration
implicate
constitutional
rights
see
turner
task
formulate
standard
review
prisoners
constitutional
claims
responsive
policy
judicial
restraint
regarding
prisoner
complaints
need
protect
constitutional
rights
citation
omitted
pell
jones
bell
already
resolved
question
posed
procunier
martinez
resolve
prison
regulation
impinges
inmates
constitutional
rights
regulation
valid
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
interests
estate
shabazz
supra
ensure
courts
afford
appropriate
deference
prison
officials
determined
prison
regulations
alleged
infringe
constitutional
rights
judged
reasonableness
test
less
restrictive
ordinarily
applied
alleged
infringements
fundamental
constitutional
rights
turner
applied
reasonableness
standard
prison
regulation
imposed
severe
restrictions
inmate
right
marry
right
protected
due
process
clause
see
turner
supra
citing
zablocki
redhail
loving
virginia
precedents
require
application
standard
turner
considered
various
factors
determine
reasonableness
challenged
prison
regulation
three
relevant
first
must
valid
rational
connection
prison
regulation
legitimate
governmental
interest
put
forward
justify
quoting
block
rutherford
second
must
consider
impact
accommodation
asserted
constitutional
right
guards
inmates
allocation
prison
resources
generally
third
absence
ready
alternatives
evidence
reasonableness
prison
regulation
mean
prison
officials
set
shoot
every
conceivable
alternative
method
accommodating
claimant
constitutional
complaint
see
also
estate
shabazz
supra
applying
factors
regulation
us
conclude
policy
comports
constitutional
requirements
little
doubt
legitimacy
importance
governmental
interest
presented
cases
state
interest
combating
danger
posed
person
others
greater
prison
environment
definition
made
persons
demonstrated
proclivity
antisocial
criminal
often
violent
conduct
hudson
palmer
jones
supra
wolff
mcdonnell
confront
state
obligations
interests
state
undertaken
obligation
provide
prisoners
medical
treatment
consistent
medical
interests
also
needs
institution
prison
administrators
interest
ensuring
safety
prison
staffs
administrative
personnel
see
hewitt
also
duty
take
reasonable
measures
prisoners
safety
see
hudson
supra
concerns
added
weight
penal
institution
like
soc
restricted
inmates
mental
illnesses
inmate
mental
disability
root
cause
threat
poses
inmate
population
state
interest
decreasing
danger
others
necessarily
encompasses
interest
providing
medical
treatment
illness
soc
policy
rational
means
furthering
state
legitimate
objectives
exclusive
application
inmates
mentally
ill
result
illness
gravely
disabled
represent
significant
danger
others
drugs
may
administered
purpose
treatment
direction
licensed
psychiatrist
considerable
debate
potential
side
effects
antipsychotic
medications
little
dispute
psychiatric
profession
proper
use
drugs
one
effective
means
treating
controlling
mental
illness
likely
cause
violent
behavior
alternative
means
proffered
respondent
accommodating
interest
rejecting
forced
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
demonstrate
invalidity
state
policy
respondent
main
contention
precondition
antipsychotic
drug
treatment
state
must
find
incompetent
obtain
approval
treatment
using
substituted
judgment
standard
suggested
rule
takes
account
legitimate
governmental
interest
treating
medically
appropriate
purpose
reducing
danger
poses
rule
way
responsive
state
legitimate
interests
proper
accommodation
rejected
hand
physical
restraints
seclusion
alternative
fully
accommodat
prisoner
rights
de
minimis
cost
valid
penological
interests
turner
supra
physical
restraints
effective
short
term
serious
physical
side
effects
used
resisting
inmate
see
brief
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
amici
curiae
well
leaving
staff
risk
injury
putting
restraints
tending
inmate
furthermore
respondent
failed
demonstrate
physical
restraints
seclusion
acceptable
substitutes
antipsychotic
drugs
terms
either
medical
effectiveness
toll
limited
prison
resources
hold
given
requirements
prison
environment
due
process
clause
permits
state
treat
prison
inmate
serious
mental
illness
antipsychotic
drugs
inmate
dangerous
others
treatment
inmate
medical
interest
policy
comports
requirements
therefore
reject
respondent
contention
substantive
standards
deficient
constitution
iv
determined
state
law
recognizes
liberty
interest
also
protected
due
process
clause
permits
refusal
antipsychotic
drugs
unless
certain
preconditions
met
address
next
procedural
protections
necessary
ensure
decision
medicate
inmate
neither
arbitrary
erroneous
standards
discussed
washington
held
full
judicial
hearing
inmate
represented
counsel
required
due
process
clause
state
administer
antipsychotic
drugs
addition
held
state
must
justify
authorization
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
clear
cogent
convincing
evidence
hold
administrative
hearing
procedures
set
soc
policy
comport
procedural
due
process
conclude
washington
erred
requiring
judicial
hearing
prerequisite
involuntary
treatment
prison
inmates
primary
point
disagreement
parties
whether
due
process
requires
judicial
decisionmaker
written
policy
requires
decision
whether
medicate
inmate
made
hearing
committee
composed
psychiatrist
psychologist
center
associate
superintendent
none
committee
members
may
involved
time
hearing
inmate
treatment
diagnosis
members
disqualified
sitting
committee
however
treated
diagnosed
inmate
past
committee
decision
subject
review
superintendent
inmate
desires
may
seek
judicial
review
decision
state
see
supra
respondent
contends
make
decision
medicate
inmate
procedural
protections
required
due
process
clause
must
determined
reference
rights
interests
stake
particular
case
morrissey
brewer
hewitt
greenholtz
nebraska
penal
inmates
factors
guide
us
well
established
mathews
eldridge
consider
private
interests
stake
governmental
decision
governmental
interests
involved
value
procedural
requirements
determining
process
due
fourteenth
amendment
hewitt
supra
respondent
interest
avoiding
unwarranted
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
insubstantial
forcible
injection
medication
nonconsenting
person
body
represents
substantial
interference
person
liberty
cf
winston
lee
schmerber
california
purpose
drugs
alter
chemical
balance
patient
brain
leading
changes
intended
beneficial
cognitive
processes
see
supra
therapeutic
benefits
antipsychotic
drugs
well
documented
also
true
drugs
serious
even
fatal
side
effects
one
side
effect
identified
trial
acute
dystonia
severe
involuntary
spasm
upper
body
tongue
throat
eyes
trial
found
may
treated
reversed
within
minutes
use
medication
cogentin
side
effects
include
akathesia
motor
restlessness
often
characterized
inability
sit
still
neuroleptic
malignant
syndrome
relatively
rare
condition
lead
death
cardiac
dysfunction
tardive
dyskinesia
perhaps
discussed
side
effect
antipsychotic
drugs
see
finding
fact
app
pet
cert
brief
american
psychological
association
amicus
curiae
tardive
dyskinesia
neurological
disorder
irreversible
cases
characterized
involuntary
uncontrollable
movements
various
muscles
especially
around
face
see
mills
state
respondent
amici
sharply
disagree
frequency
tardive
dyskinesia
occurs
severity
medical
profession
ability
treat
arrest
reverse
condition
fair
reading
evidence
however
suggests
proportion
patients
treated
antipsychotic
drugs
exhibit
symptoms
tardive
dyskinesia
ranges
according
american
psychiatric
association
studies
condition
indicate
tardive
dyskinesia
mild
minimal
effect
may
characterized
severe
brief
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
amici
curiae
see
also
brief
american
psychological
association
amicus
curiae
notwithstanding
risks
involved
conclude
inmate
interests
adequately
protected
perhaps
better
served
allowing
decision
medicate
made
medical
professionals
rather
judge
due
process
clause
never
thought
require
neutral
detached
trier
fact
law
trained
judicial
administrative
officer
parham
though
doubted
decision
medicate
societal
legal
implications
constitution
prohibit
state
permitting
medical
personnel
make
decision
fair
procedural
mechanisms
see
cf
youngberg
particularly
patient
mentally
disturbed
intentions
difficult
assess
changeable
event
schwartz
vingiano
perez
autonomy
right
refuse
treatment
patients
attitudes
involuntary
medication
hospital
community
psychiatry
respondent
history
accepting
refusing
drug
treatment
illustrates
point
make
facile
assumption
patient
intentions
substituted
judgment
approximating
intentions
determined
single
judicial
hearing
apart
realities
frequent
ongoing
clinical
observation
medical
professionals
holding
parham
judicial
hearing
required
prior
voluntary
commitment
child
mental
hospital
based
similar
observations
ue
process
violated
use
informal
traditional
medical
investigative
techniques
mode
procedure
medical
diagnostic
procedures
business
judges
although
acknowledge
fallibility
medical
psychiatric
diagnosis
see
donaldson
concurring
opinion
accept
notion
shortcomings
specialists
always
avoided
shifting
decision
trained
specialist
using
traditional
tools
medical
science
untrained
judge
administrative
hearing
officer
hearing
even
hearing
nonspecialist
decisionmaker
must
make
decision
common
human
experience
scholarly
opinions
suggest
supposed
protections
adversary
proceeding
determine
appropriateness
medical
decisions
commitment
treatment
mental
emotional
illness
may
well
illusory
real
parham
policy
decisionmaker
asked
review
medical
treatment
decision
made
medical
professional
review
requires
two
medical
inquiries
first
whether
inmate
suffers
mental
disorder
second
whether
result
disorder
dangerous
others
property
policy
hearing
committee
reviews
regular
basis
staff
choice
type
dosage
drug
administered
order
appropriate
changes
risks
associated
antipsychotic
drugs
part
medical
ones
best
assessed
medical
professionals
state
may
conclude
good
reason
judicial
hearing
effective
continuous
probing
administrative
review
using
medical
decisionmakers
hold
due
process
requires
state
attempt
set
high
standard
determining
involuntary
medication
antipsychotic
drugs
permitted
withstand
challenge
procedural
safeguards
ensure
prisoner
interests
taken
account
adequate
procedures
exist
particular
independence
decisionmaker
addressed
satisfaction
procedures
none
hearing
committee
members
may
involved
inmate
current
treatment
diagnosis
record
us
moreover
limited
hearings
given
respondent
indication
institutional
biases
affected
altered
decision
medicate
respondent
trial
made
specific
findings
respondent
history
assaultive
behavior
doctors
attribute
mental
disease
policy
requirements
met
see
app
pet
cert
found
also
medical
treatment
provided
respondent
including
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
times
consistent
degree
care
skill
learning
expected
reasonably
prudent
psychiatrist
state
washington
acting
similar
circumstances
absence
record
evidence
contrary
willing
presume
members
staff
lack
necessary
independence
provide
inmate
full
fair
hearing
accordance
policy
previous
cases
involving
medical
decisions
implicating
similar
liberty
interests
approved
use
similar
internal
decisionmakers
see
vitek
parham
supra
cf
wolff
prison
officials
sufficiently
impartial
conduct
prison
disciplinary
hearings
reasoned
vitek
permitting
persons
connected
institution
make
decisions
courts
able
avoid
unnecessary
intrusion
either
medical
correctional
judgments
vitek
supra
see
turner
procedures
established
center
sufficient
meet
requirements
due
process
respects
reject
respondent
arguments
contrary
policy
provides
notice
right
present
adversary
hearing
right
present
witnesses
see
vitek
supra
procedural
protections
vitiated
meetings
committee
members
staff
hearing
absent
evidence
resulting
bias
evidence
actual
decision
made
hearing
allowing
respondent
contest
staff
position
hearing
satisfies
requirement
opportunity
heard
must
granted
meaningful
time
meaningful
manner
armstrong
manzo
reject
also
respondent
contention
hearing
must
conducted
accordance
rules
evidence
clear
cogent
convincing
standard
proof
necessary
standard
neither
required
helpful
medical
personnel
making
judgment
required
regulations
see
vitek
supra
cf
youngberg
finally
note
state
law
inmate
may
obtain
judicial
review
hearing
committee
decision
way
personal
restraint
petition
petition
extraordinary
writ
trial
found
record
compiled
policy
adequate
allow
review
see
app
pet
cert
respondent
contends
policy
nonetheless
deficient
allow
represented
counsel
disagree
less
crystal
clear
lawyers
must
available
identify
possible
errors
medical
judgment
walters
national
association
radiation
survivors
emphasis
original
given
nature
decision
made
conclude
provision
independent
lay
adviser
understands
psychiatric
issues
involved
sufficient
protection
see
vitek
supra
powell
concurring
sum
hold
regulation
us
permissible
constitution
accommodation
inmate
liberty
interest
avoiding
forced
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
state
interests
providing
appropriate
medical
treatment
reduce
danger
inmate
suffering
serious
mental
disorder
represents
others
due
process
clause
require
certain
essential
procedural
protections
provided
regulation
us
judgment
washington
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
inconsistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
since
initial
diagnosis
respondent
also
thought
suffering
disorder
current
diagnosis
schizophrenic
policy
definitions
terms
mental
disorder
gravely
disabled
likelihood
serious
harm
identical
definitions
terms
used
state
involuntary
commitment
statute
see
app
pet
cert
mental
disorder
means
organic
mental
emotional
impairment
substantial
adverse
effects
individual
cognitive
volitional
functions
rev
code
gravely
disabled
means
condition
person
result
mental
disorder
danger
serious
physical
harm
resulting
failure
provide
essential
human
needs
health
safety
manifests
severe
deterioration
routine
functioning
evidenced
repeated
escalating
loss
cognitive
volitional
control
actions
receiving
care
essential
health
safety
likelihood
serious
harm
means
either
substantial
risk
physical
harm
inflicted
individual
upon
person
evidenced
threats
attempts
commit
suicide
inflict
physical
harm
one
self
substantial
risk
physical
harm
inflicted
individual
upon
another
evidenced
behavior
caused
harm
places
another
person
persons
reasonable
fear
sustaining
harm
substantial
risk
physical
harm
inflicted
individual
upon
property
others
evidenced
behavior
caused
substantial
loss
damage
property
others
policy
later
amended
allow
treatment
days
first
hearing
treatment
authorized
committee
conducted
second
hearing
written
record
thereafter
treating
psychiatrist
required
submit
biweekly
reports
department
corrections
medical
director
end
days
new
hearing
required
consider
need
continued
treatment
decided
case
due
process
grounds
address
respondent
equal
protection
free
speech
claims
us
also
concluded
individual
defendants
entitled
qualified
immunity
remanded
case
lower
consideration
respondent
claims
injunctive
declaratory
relief
well
claims
state
law
see
response
questions
oral
argument
counsel
state
informed
us
respondent
transferred
back
center
april
involuntarily
medicated
pursuant
policy
september
may
counsel
also
informed
us
time
oral
argument
respondent
state
mental
hospital
competency
determination
unrelated
criminal
charge
regardless
outcome
criminal
charge
respondent
return
state
prison
system
serve
remainder
sentence
two
questions
presented
state
petition
certiorari
mirror
division
substantive
procedural
aspects
case
addition
seeking
grant
certiorari
question
whether
respondent
entitled
judicial
hearing
attendant
adversarial
procedural
protections
prior
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
state
sought
certiorari
question
assuming
respondent
possesses
constitutionally
protected
liberty
interest
refusing
medically
prescribed
antipsychotic
medication
whether
state
must
prove
compelling
state
interest
whether
reasonable
relation
standard
turner
safley
control
pet
cert
justice
stevens
contends
soc
policy
permits
respondent
doctors
treat
antipsychotic
medications
without
reference
whether
treatment
medically
appropriate
see
post
various
reasons
disagree
inmate
mentally
ill
dangerous
necessary
condition
medication
sufficient
condition
hearing
committee
determines
whether
requirements
met
inmate
treating
physician
must
first
make
decision
medication
appropriate
soc
facility
whose
purpose
warehouse
mentally
ill
diagnose
treat
convicted
felons
desired
goal
recover
point
function
normal
prison
environment
app
pet
cert
keeping
purpose
soc
psychiatrist
must
first
prescribe
antipsychotic
medication
inmate
inmate
must
refuse
policy
invoked
unlike
justice
stevens
assume
physicians
prescribe
drugs
reasons
unrelated
medical
needs
patients
indeed
ethics
medical
profession
contrary
see
hippocratic
oath
american
psychiatric
association
principles
medical
ethics
annotations
especially
applicable
psychiatry
codes
professional
responsibility
gorlin
ed
consideration
supports
interpretation
state
policy
ensuring
antipsychotic
medications
administered
cases
appropriate
medical
standards
therefore
agree
state
representations
oral
argument
policy
antipsychotic
medications
administered
treatment
purposes
hearing
committee
reviewing
doctor
decision
ensure
prescribed
appropriate
see
tr
oral
arg
see
brief
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
amici
curiae
psychotropic
medication
widely
accepted
within
psychiatric
community
extraordinarily
effective
treatment
acute
chronic
psychoses
particularly
schizophrenia
brief
american
psychological
association
amicus
curiae
substantial
evidence
contrary
see
brief
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
amici
curiae
soloff
physical
controls
use
seclusion
restraint
modern
psychiatric
practice
clinical
treatment
violent
person
roth
ed
documenting
risks
costs
using
physical
restraints
seclusion
violent
patients
perhaps
suggesting
care
given
respondent
center
utilization
policy
may
suspect
justice
stevens
uses
random
citations
exhibits
documents
submitted
state
trial
using
isolated
quotations
passages
medical
records
running
hundreds
pages
justice
stevens
risks
presenting
rather
portrait
contain
overview
extensive
materials
reveals
respondent
long
history
serious
assaultive
behavior
evidenced
least
reported
incidents
serious
assaults
fellow
inmates
staff
respondent
doctors
attributed
incidents
severe
mental
illness
believed
assaultive
tendencies
increased
receive
medication
see
app
pet
cert
respondent
opposition
involuntary
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
premised
least
part
upon
desire
street
drugs
especially
cocaine
see
lodging
filed
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
washington
book
july
progress
report
finally
records
show
without
doubt
respondent
recipient
painstaking
medical
diagnosis
care
soc
event
trial
indicate
portions
records
hearsay
credited
relied
upon
making
findings
reasons
intend
engage
debate
justice
stevens
respondent
medical
institutional
records
interpreted
rely
upon
findings
trial
times
relevant
action
respondent
suffered
mental
disorder
result
disorder
constituted
likelihood
serious
harm
others
app
pet
cert
medical
treatment
provided
respondent
defendants
including
administration
medications
consistent
degree
care
skill
learning
expected
reasonably
prudent
psychiatrist
state
washington
acting
similar
circumstances
ibid
contrary
justice
stevens
cramped
reading
last
finding
see
post
breadth
meaning
equals
breadth
language
justice
stevens
concerned
discount
ing
severity
drugs
see
post
discussion
text
indicates
well
aware
side
effects
risks
presented
drugs
also
well
aware
disagreements
medical
profession
frequency
severity
permanence
side
effects
set
forth
fair
assessment
current
state
medical
knowledge
drugs
justice
stevens
discount
benefits
drugs
deference
owed
medical
professionals
full
time
responsibility
caring
mentally
ill
inmates
like
respondent
possess
courts
requisite
knowledge
expertise
determine
whether
drugs
used
individual
case
admitting
proper
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
one
effective
means
treating
certain
mental
illnesses
justice
stevens
contends
drugs
indicated
patients
questions
appropriateness
treatment
provided
respondent
see
post
concede
drugs
approved
treatment
cases
whether
respondent
medical
treatment
appropriate
sanguine
believe
basis
limited
record
us
medical
expertise
knowledge
necessary
determine
whether
basis
isolated
parts
respondent
medical
records
care
given
consistent
good
medical
practice
must
defer
finding
trial
unchallenged
party
case
medical
care
provided
respondent
appropriate
medical
standards
see
supra
attempt
prove
internal
decisionmakers
lack
independence
necessary
render
impartial
decisions
respondent
various
amici
refer
us
cases
alleged
antipsychotic
drugs
prescribed
medical
purposes
control
discipline
mentally
ill
patients
see
brief
respondent
brief
american
psychological
association
amicus
curiae
rejected
similar
claim
parham
using
much
reasoning
practice
may
take
place
institutions
places
affords
basis
finding
washington
program
parham
particularly
light
trial
finding
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
respondent
consistent
good
medical
practice
moreover
practical
effect
mandating
outside
decisionmaker
independent
psychiatrist
judge
circumstances
may
chimerical
review
literature
indicates
outside
decisionmakers
concur
treating
physician
decision
treat
patient
involuntarily
cases
see
bloom
faulkner
holm
rawlinson
empirical
view
patients
exercising
right
refuse
treatment
law
psychiatry
independent
examining
physician
used
oregon
psychiatric
hospital
concurred
decision
involuntarily
medicate
patients
cases
hickman
resnick
olson
right
refuse
psychotropic
medication
interdisciplinary
proposal
mental
disability
law
reporter
independent
reviewing
psychiatrist
used
ohio
affirmed
recommendation
internal
reviewer
cases
review
judges
decisions
override
patient
objections
medication
yields
similar
results
appelbaum
right
refuse
treatment
antipsychotic
medications
retrospect
prospect
psychiatry
comparison
studies
reveal
review
internal
decisionmakers
hardly
lackluster
justice
stevens
suggests
see
hickman
resnick
olson
supra
internal
reviewer
approved
involuntary
treatment
cases
zito
lentz
routt
olson
treatment
review
panel
solution
treatment
refusal
bull
american
academy
psychiatry
law
internal
review
panel
used
minnesota
mental
hospital
approved
involuntary
medication
cases
see
generally
appelbaum
hoge
right
refuse
treatment
research
reveals
behavioral
sciences
law
summarizing
results
studies
various
institutions
review
patients
decisions
refuse
antipsychotic
medications
noting
infrequency
refusals
allowed
regardless
system
decisionmaker
justice
blackmun
concurring
join
opinion
difficult
controversial
character
case
illustrated
simple
fact
american
psychiatric
association
american
psychological
association
respected
knowledgeable
informed
professional
organizations
amici
curiae
pull
opposite
directions
add
caveat
much
difficulty
lessened
appropriate
case
mentally
ill
patient
formally
committed
occasion
may
seem
bother
nuisance
move
protective
concerned
inmate
institution
staff
physician
state
cf
zinermon
burch
ante
step
avoided
neglected
significant
indications
incompetency
present
justice
stevens
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
join
concurring
part
dissenting
part
join
explanation
case
moot
disagree
evaluation
merits
undervalued
respondent
liberty
interest
misread
washington
involuntary
medication
policy
misapplied
decision
turner
safley
concluded
mock
trial
institutionally
biased
tribunal
constitutes
due
process
law
errors
merits
separate
discussion
acknowledges
fourteenth
amendment
respondent
possesses
significant
liberty
interest
avoiding
unwanted
administration
antipsychotic
drugs
ante
virtually
ignores
several
dimensions
liberty
physical
intellectual
every
violation
person
bodily
integrity
invasion
liberty
invasion
particularly
intrusive
creates
substantial
risk
permanent
injury
premature
death
moreover
action
degrading
overrides
competent
person
choice
reject
specific
form
medical
treatment
purpose
effect
forced
drugging
alter
mind
subject
constitutes
deprivation
liberty
literal
fundamental
sense
makers
constitution
undertook
secure
conditions
favorable
pursuit
happiness
recognized
significance
man
spiritual
nature
feelings
intellect
knew
part
pain
pleasure
satisfactions
life
found
material
things
sought
protect
americans
beliefs
thoughts
emotions
sensations
conferred
government
right
let
alone
comprehensive
rights
right
valued
civilized
men
olmstead
brandeis
dissenting
record
one
walter
harper
involuntary
medication
hearings
special
offense
center
soc
notes
inmate
harper
stated
rather
die
th
take
medication
harper
opposed
taking
psychotropic
drugs
surprising
acknowledges
drugs
alter
chemical
balance
patient
brain
cause
irreversible
fatal
side
effects
prolixin
injections
harper
receiving
time
statement
exemplify
intrusiveness
psychotropic
drugs
person
body
mind
prolixin
acts
levels
central
nervous
system
well
multiple
organ
systems
induce
alter
electroencephalographic
tracings
cause
swelling
brain
adverse
reactions
include
drowsiness
excitement
restlessness
bizarre
dreams
hypertension
nausea
vomiting
loss
appetite
salivation
dry
mouth
perspiration
headache
constipation
blurred
vision
impotency
eczema
jaundice
tremors
muscle
spasms
psychotropic
drugs
prolixin
may
cause
tardive
dyskinesia
often
irreversible
syndrome
uncontrollable
movements
prevent
person
exercising
basic
functions
driving
automobile
neuroleptic
malignant
syndrome
fatal
suffer
risk
side
effects
increases
time
washington
properly
equated
intrusiveness
drug
treatment
electroconvulsive
therapy
psychosurgery
agreed
judicial
massachusetts
determination
drugs
profound
effect
person
thought
processes
likelihood
severe
irreversible
adverse
side
effects
therefore
treated
manner
treat
psychosurgery
electroconvulsive
therapy
quoting
guardianship
roe
mass
doubt
state
courts
analyzed
issue
concluded
competent
individual
right
refuse
medication
fundamental
liberty
interest
deserving
highest
order
protection
ii
arguably
three
quite
different
state
interests
might
advanced
justify
deprivation
liberty
interest
state
might
seek
compel
harper
submit
drug
treatment
program
punishment
crime
committed
cure
mental
illness
mechanism
maintain
order
prison
today
recognizes
harper
liberty
interest
first
justification
forced
administration
antipsychotic
medication
may
used
form
punishment
conclusion
follows
inexorably
holding
vitek
jones
constitution
provides
convicted
felon
protection
due
process
involuntary
transfer
prison
population
mental
hospital
psychiatric
treatment
explained
appellants
maintain
transfer
prisoner
mental
hospital
within
range
confinement
justified
imposition
prison
sentence
least
certification
qualified
person
prisoner
suffers
mental
disease
defect
agree
none
decisions
holds
conviction
crime
entitles
state
confine
convicted
person
also
determine
mental
illness
subject
involuntarily
institutional
care
mental
hospital
consequences
visited
prisoner
qualitatively
different
punishment
characteristically
suffered
person
convicted
crime
cases
recognize
much
reflect
understanding
involuntary
commitment
mental
hospital
within
range
conditions
confinement
prison
sentence
subjects
individual
baxstrom
herold
specht
patterson
humphrey
cady
jackson
indiana
criminal
conviction
sentence
imprisonment
extinguish
individual
right
freedom
confinement
term
sentence
authorize
state
classify
mentally
ill
subject
involuntary
psychiatric
treatment
without
affording
additional
due
process
protections
iven
requirements
prison
environment
due
process
clause
permits
state
treat
prison
inmate
serious
mental
illness
antipsychotic
drugs
inmate
dangerous
others
treatment
inmate
medical
interest
policy
comports
requirements
therefore
reject
respondent
contention
substantive
standards
deficient
constitution
ante
emphasis
added
standard
upholds
soc
policy
determining
administrative
scheme
confers
matter
state
law
substantive
liberty
interest
coextensive
conferred
due
process
clause
ante
whether
state
alleged
interest
providing
medically
beneficial
treatment
custody
mentally
ill
may
alone
override
refusal
psychotropic
drugs
presumptively
competent
person
plain
reading
policy
reveals
meet
substantive
standard
set
forth
even
terms
policy
constitutionally
insufficient
policy
permits
forced
administration
psychotropic
drugs
mentally
ill
inmate
based
purely
impact
disorder
security
prison
environment
provisions
policy
make
reference
expected
benefit
inmate
medical
condition
policy
requires
order
involuntary
medication
approved
must
demonstrated
inmate
suffers
mental
disorder
result
disorder
constitutes
likelihood
serious
harm
others
gravely
disabled
lodging
book
policy
likelihood
serious
harm
according
policy
means
either
substantial
risk
physical
harm
inflicted
individual
upon
person
evidenced
threats
attempts
commit
suicide
inflict
physical
harm
one
self
ii
substantial
risk
physical
harm
inflicted
individual
upon
another
evidenced
behavior
caused
harm
places
another
person
persons
reasonable
fear
sustaining
harm
iii
substantial
risk
physical
harm
inflicted
individual
upon
property
others
evidenced
behavior
caused
substantial
loss
damage
property
others
although
application
policy
requires
medical
judgment
prisoner
mental
condition
cause
behavior
policy
require
determination
forced
medication
advance
medical
interest
use
psychotropic
drugs
state
readily
admits
serves
ease
institutional
administrative
burdens
maintaining
prison
security
provides
means
managing
unruly
prison
population
preventing
property
damage
focusing
risk
inmate
mental
condition
poses
people
property
policy
allows
state
exercise
either
parens
patriae
authority
police
authority
override
prisoner
liberty
interest
refusing
psychotropic
drugs
thus
unfortunately
simply
basis
assertion
medication
policy
must
advance
prisoner
medical
interest
policy
sweepingly
sacrifices
inmate
substantive
liberty
interest
refuse
psychotropic
drugs
regardless
medical
interests
institutional
administrative
concerns
state
clearly
legitimate
interest
prison
security
administrative
convenience
encompasses
responding
potential
risks
persons
property
however
extent
recognizes
prisoner
medical
interests
state
interests
potentially
independent
justifications
involuntary
medication
inmates
seriously
misapplies
standard
announced
turner
safley
turner
held
prison
regulation
impinges
inmates
constitutional
rights
valid
reasonably
related
legitimate
penological
interests
test
determined
regulation
barring
correspondence
adequately
supported
state
institutional
security
concerns
also
unanimously
concluded
regulation
prohibiting
inmate
marriage
except
consent
prison
superintendent
made
upon
proof
compelling
circumstances
exaggerated
response
prison
claimed
security
objectives
reasonably
related
articulated
rehabilitation
goal
state
advances
security
concerns
justification
forced
medication
two
distinct
circumstances
soc
policy
provision
issue
case
permits
hours
involuntary
medication
emergency
basis
inmate
suffering
mental
disorder
result
disorder
presents
imminent
likelihood
serious
harm
others
lodging
book
policy
emphasis
added
contrast
imminent
danger
injury
triggers
emergency
medication
provisions
general
risk
injury
property
damage
evidenced
past
behavior
allows
involuntary
medication
inmate
psychotropic
drugs
policy
ongoing
interest
security
management
penological
concern
constitutionally
distinct
magnitude
necessity
responding
emergencies
see
whitley
albers
difficult
imagine
limits
restrain
general
concern
prison
administrators
believe
prison
environments
definition
made
persons
demonstrated
proclivity
antisocial
criminal
often
violent
conduct
ante
quoting
hudson
palmer
rule
allows
prison
administrators
address
potential
security
risks
forcing
psychotropic
drugs
mentally
ill
inmates
prolonged
periods
unquestionably
exaggerated
response
concern
turner
concluded
record
us
marriage
regulation
written
reasonably
related
penological
interests
obvious
easy
alternatives
state
failed
rebut
reference
record
today
concludes
alternatives
psychotropic
drugs
impose
de
minimis
costs
state
however
record
us
establish
narrowly
drawn
policy
withdrawing
psychotropics
inmates
actually
refuse
consent
pose
imminent
threat
serious
harm
increase
marginal
costs
soc
administration
harper
record
reveals
administrative
segregation
standard
disciplinary
sanctions
frequently
imposed
forced
medication
thus
add
new
costs
lodging
book
similarly
intramuscular
injections
psychotropics
frequently
forced
harper
book
entail
greater
risk
administration
less
dangerous
drugs
tranquilizers
use
psychotropic
drugs
simply
suppress
inmate
potential
violence
rather
achieve
therapeutic
results
may
also
undermine
efficacy
available
treatment
programs
better
address
illness
careful
differentiation
turner
state
articulated
goals
security
rehabilitation
emulated
case
flaw
washington
policy
basic
error
opinion
today
failure
divorce
two
justifications
forced
medication
consider
extent
policy
reasonably
related
either
interest
state
arguably
allows
soc
blend
state
interests
responding
emergencies
convenient
prison
administration
individual
interest
receiving
beneficial
medical
treatment
result
muddled
rationale
allows
exaggerated
response
forced
psychotropic
medication
basis
purely
institutional
concerns
serving
institutional
convenience
eviscerates
inmate
substantive
liberty
interest
integrity
body
mind
iii
procedures
policy
also
constitutionally
deficient
whether
state
ever
may
order
involuntary
administration
psychotropic
drugs
mentally
ill
person
committed
custody
declared
incompetent
least
clear
decision
approving
drugs
must
made
impartial
professional
concerned
institutional
interests
individual
best
interests
critical
defect
policy
failure
treatment
decision
made
reviewed
impartial
person
tribunal
see
vitek
psychiatrists
diagnose
provide
routine
care
soc
inmates
may
prescribe
psychotropic
drugs
recommend
involuntary
medication
policy
policy
provides
nonemergency
decision
medicate
seven
consecutive
days
must
approved
special
committee
hearing
committee
consists
associate
superintendent
soc
psychologist
psychiatrist
neither
medical
professionals
may
involved
current
diagnosis
treatment
inmate
approval
psychiatrist
one
committee
member
required
sustain
involuntary
medication
decision
lodging
book
policy
similarly
composed
committee
required
authorize
long
term
involuntary
medication
lasting
seven
days
policy
bar
current
treating
professionals
previous
committee
members
serving
committee
committee
conduct
new
hearing
merely
reviews
inmate
file
minutes
hearing
approval
granted
allows
medication
continue
indefinitely
review
report
treating
psychiatrist
every
days
book
policy
decisionmakers
two
disqualifying
conflicts
interest
first
panel
members
must
review
work
treating
physicians
colleagues
turn
regularly
review
decisions
system
pits
interests
inmate
objects
forced
medication
judgment
doctor
often
doctor
colleagues
furthermore
conclusion
one
hearing
committee
members
may
involved
inmate
current
treatment
diagnosis
ante
overlooks
fact
policy
allows
treating
psychiatrist
participate
initial
medication
approval
revolving
door
operated
harper
case
petrich
treated
harper
recommended
involuntary
medication
october
lodging
book
loeken
staff
psychologist
giles
assistant
superintendent
stark
authorized
medication
seven
days
hearing
november
petrich
replaced
loeken
committee
giles
stark
approved
involuntary
medication
december
solely
authority
petrich
prescribed
psychotropic
medication
harper
december
throughout
following
year
second
panel
members
regular
staff
center
must
concerned
inmate
best
medical
interests
also
convenient
means
controlling
mentally
disturbed
inmate
mere
fact
decision
made
doctor
make
certain
professional
judgment
fact
exercised
youngberg
romeo
structure
soc
committee
virtually
ensures
initial
inquiry
mental
bases
inmate
behavior
medical
ultimate
medication
decision
policy
turns
assessment
risk
inmate
condition
imposes
institution
prescribing
physician
member
review
committee
must
therefore
wear
two
hats
hybrid
function
disables
independent
exercise
decisionmaker
professional
judgment
structure
review
committee
confuses
objective
inquiry
two
committee
members
trained
licensed
prescribe
psychotropic
drugs
one
medical
expertise
trump
institutional
interests
dramatized
fact
appeals
committee
decisions
policy
made
solely
soc
superintendent
asserts
indication
institutional
biases
affected
altered
decision
medicate
respondent
evidence
antipsychotic
drugs
prescribed
medical
purposes
control
discipline
mentally
ill
patients
ante
finding
bias
individual
case
unnecessary
determine
structure
policy
fails
meet
due
process
requirements
fourteenth
amendment
addition
harper
record
illustrates
potential
abuse
psychotropics
policy
institutional
ends
example
petrich
added
taractan
psychotropic
drug
harper
medication
around
october
nothing
goal
increased
medication
sedate
night
relieve
residents
evening
sic
alike
burden
supervising
intensely
examination
physicians
also
indicated
harper
prophylactically
medicated
absent
symptoms
qualify
involuntary
medication
institutional
bias
inherent
identity
decisionmakers
unchecked
aspects
policy
committee
need
consider
whether
less
intrusive
procedures
effective
even
prescribed
medication
beneficial
prisoner
approving
involuntary
medication
findings
regarding
severity
probability
potential
side
effects
drugs
dosages
required
although
policy
prescribe
standard
proof
necessary
factual
determination
upon
medication
decision
rests
gratuitously
advises
clear
cogent
convincing
standard
adopted
state
unnecessary
hearing
likely
raise
issues
fairly
completely
inmate
recommended
involuntary
medication
capable
speaking
effectively
issues
complex
otherwise
difficult
develop
present
inmate
recommended
transfer
mental
hospital
vitek
powell
concurring
part
although
single
doses
psychotropic
drugs
designed
effective
full
month
inmate
may
refuse
medication
contesting
hours
hearing
policy
also
allow
inmate
represented
counsel
hearings
present
adviser
appointed
soc
lodging
book
policy
pp
advisers
questionable
loyalties
efficacy
provide
independent
assistance
required
inmate
fairly
understand
participate
hearing
process
addition
although
policy
gives
inmate
limitable
right
present
testimony
witnesses
confront
witnesses
next
paragraph
takes
right
away
reasons
include
limited
things
irrelevance
lack
necessity
redundancy
possible
reprisals
reasons
relating
institutional
interests
security
order
rehabilitation
lodging
book
policy
finally
policy
provides
hearing
committee
paper
record
committee
inmate
opportunity
present
objections
crucial
decision
medicate
basis
sum
difficult
imagine
committee
convened
policy
conceivably
discover
much
less
persuaded
overrule
erroneous
arbitrary
decision
medicate
maintain
specific
dosage
type
drug
see
mathews
eldridge
institutional
control
infects
decisionmakers
entire
procedure
state
courts
reviewed
comparable
procedures
uniformly
concluded
adequately
protect
significant
liberty
interest
implicated
forced
administration
psychotropic
drugs
agree
conclusion
although
review
procedure
administered
impartial
nonjudicial
professionals
might
avoid
constitutional
deficiencies
policy
affirm
decision
washington
requiring
judicial
hearing
attendant
procedural
safeguards
remedy
case
continue
believe
even
inmate
retains
unalienable
interest
liberty
minimum
right
treated
dignity
constitution
may
never
ignore
meachum
fano
dissenting
opinion
competent
individual
right
refuse
psychotropic
medication
aspect
liberty
requiring
highest
order
protection
fourteenth
amendment
accordingly
exception
part
ii
respectfully
dissent
opinion
judgment
winston
lee
surgery
youngberg
romeo
use
physical
soft
restraints
arms
muffs
hands
see
mills
rogers
recognizing
battery
unauthorized
touchings
physician
assuming
liberty
interests
implicated
involuntary
administration
psychotropic
drugs
stanley
concurring
part
dissenting
part
constitution
promise
due
process
law
guarantees
least
compensation
violations
principle
stated
nuremberg
military
tribunals
voluntary
consent
human
subject
absolutely
essential
satisfy
moral
ethical
legal
concepts
doe
bolton
douglas
concurring
fourteenth
amendment
protects
freedom
care
one
health
person
emphasis
deleted
harper
adjudged
insane
incompetent
see
also
stanley
georgia
whole
constitutional
heritage
rebels
thought
giving
government
power
control
men
minds
obligatory
helsinki
signatory
manipulate
minds
citizens
step
man
conscience
god
prevent
thoughts
finding
expression
peaceful
action
painfully
aware
furthermore
governments
systematically
disregard
rights
people
likely
respect
rights
nations
people
hearings
abuse
psychiatry
soviet
union
human
rights
international
organizations
house
committee
foreign
affairs
remarks
max
kampelman
chair
delegation
plenary
session
commission
security
cooperation
europe
lodging
filed
kenneth
eikenberry
attorney
general
washington
hereinafter
lodging
book
hearing
harper
testified
well
want
medicate
medicating
haldol
paral
zed
right
side
body
ou
burning
life
ou
burning
freedom
lodging
includes
books
discovery
material
parties
stipulated
considered
trial
substantive
evidence
trial
considered
documents
app
pet
cert
hereinafter
referred
book
number
date
entry
applicable
use
lodging
engage
debate
assessment
harper
treatment
ante
simply
illustrate
boundaries
policy
operation
ante
relies
heavily
brief
american
psychiatric
association
et
al
amici
curiae
psychiatrists
brief
see
ante
discount
severity
drugs
however
medical
findings
discussed
briefs
support
conclusions
washington
challenge
reliability
psychiatrists
brief
example
brief
american
psychological
association
amicus
curiae
psychologists
brief
points
observation
tardive
dyskinesia
increasing
alarming
rate
since
data
relied
psychiatrists
brief
chance
suffering
potentially
devastating
disorder
greater
one
four
psychologists
brief
see
also
brief
coalition
fundamental
rights
equality
amicus
curiae
findings
recent
literature
side
effects
brief
national
association
protection
advocacy
systems
et
al
amici
curiae
psychiatrists
also
may
entirely
disinterested
experts
psychologists
charge
psychiatrist
written
itigation
patients
suffering
td
tardive
dyskinesia
expected
explode
within
next
five
years
psychiatrists
physicians
continue
minimize
seriousness
td
despite
continual
warnings
psychologists
brief
quoting
simon
clinical
psychiatry
law
physician
desk
reference
ed
trial
finding
app
pet
cert
guze
baxter
neuroleptic
malignant
syndrome
new
england
med
physician
desk
reference
supra
harper
voluntarily
took
psychotropic
drugs
six
years
involuntary
medication
began
time
already
exhibited
dystonia
acute
muscle
spasms
akathesia
agitation
lodging
book
may
see
also
trial
findings
app
pet
cert
although
avoidance
akathesia
risk
tardive
dyskinesia
require
reduction
discontinuance
psychotropics
harper
involuntary
medication
continuous
november
june
except
one
month
spent
washington
state
reformatory
lodging
book
trial
findings
app
pet
cert
see
large
superior
en
banc
riese
mary
hospital
medical
center
cal
app
cal
rptr
dist
review
granted
dism
people
medina
en
banc
rogers
commissioner
dept
mental
health
mass
rivers
katz
mental
health
cf
schuoler
right
refuse
electroconvulsive
therapy
lodging
book
policy
revised
policy
effective
february
retained
substantive
definitions
lodging
book
policy
reliance
hippocratic
oath
save
constitutionality
policy
unavailing
ante
whether
oath
binds
treating
physicians
medical
interest
requirement
prescribing
medications
bearing
soc
review
committees
governed
solely
administrative
criteria
policy
authorizing
involuntary
medication
possibly
believe
treatment
talismanically
patient
medical
interest
treatment
condition
medication
facilitates
specific
physiological
result
may
may
overall
medical
interest
patient
example
patient
medical
interest
reducing
violence
altering
mental
condition
may
often
outweighed
risk
onset
severe
medical
side
effects
see
supra
finally
qualitative
judgment
patient
best
interest
made
without
reference
preferences
policy
account
either
physician
determination
medical
interest
inmate
wishes
see
brief
petitioners
harper
history
assaultive
behavior
requires
state
exercise
police
power
appropriately
medicate
protection
others
policy
assists
prison
administrators
meeting
unquestioned
duty
provide
reasonable
safety
residents
personnel
within
institution
see
also
brief
amicus
curiae
paramount
concerns
running
prison
prison
mental
health
facility
maintaining
institutional
security
preserving
internal
order
establishing
therapeutic
environment
goes
without
saying
interest
preventing
violence
maintaining
order
significantly
amplified
entire
ward
consists
mentally
ill
prisoners
soc
trial
attempt
separate
medical
institutional
objectives
policy
construe
policy
terms
require
inmate
best
medical
interests
served
medication
trial
findings
limited
harper
case
findings
app
pet
cert
shed
light
whether
harper
doctors
reasonably
prudent
psychiatrist
state
washington
acting
similar
circumstances
soc
psychiatrist
order
medication
combination
therapeutic
institutional
concerns
finding
app
pet
cert
ante
conflates
analysis
suggesting
state
undertaken
obligation
provide
prisoners
medical
treatment
consistent
medical
interests
also
needs
institution
ante
evidence
small
fraction
inmates
refuse
drugs
voluntary
policy
harper
voluntarily
took
psychotropics
six
years
intermittently
consented
lodging
books
see
rogers
okin
supp
mass
institutionalized
patients
refused
psychotropic
drugs
prolonged
periods
two
years
judicial
restraining
order
effect
modified
vacated
remanded
sub
nom
mills
rogers
efficacy
forced
drugging
also
marginal
involuntary
patients
poorer
prognosis
cooperative
patients
see
rogers
webster
assessing
treatability
mentally
disordered
offenders
law
human
behavior
notes
properly
used
drugs
one
effective
means
treating
controlling
certain
incurable
mental
illnesses
ante
panacea
care
patients
maintenance
treatment
literature
shows
many
patients
approximately
relapse
despite
receiving
neuroleptic
medication
neuroleptics
withdrawn
patients
many
months
cases
years
without
relapse
standard
maintenance
medication
treatment
strategies
though
indisputably
effective
group
comparisons
may
quite
inefficient
addressing
treatment
requirements
individual
patient
lieberman
et
reply
ethics
drug
discontinuation
studies
schizophrenia
archives
general
psychiatry
footnotes
omitted
uring
time
assaulted
nurse
cabrini
neuroleptic
medication
yet
indication
psychotic
however
stay
soc
neuroleptic
medications
times
shown
preoccupation
appearance
psychosis
become
assaultive
problems
medication
paradoxical
effect
neuroleptic
medications
may
precipitated
increased
doses
neuroleptic
medications
may
cause
exacerbation
psychosis
though
harper
focused
psychosomatic
problems
neuroleptic
medications
per
side
effects
real
problem
may
psychosis
exacerbated
neuroleptic
medications
book
may
psychotropic
drugs
induce
lethargy
drowsiness
fatigue
physician
desk
reference
ed
form
medical
treatment
may
reduce
inmate
dangerousness
improving
mental
condition
simply
sedating
medication
grossly
excessive
purpose
example
although
psychotropic
drugs
mixed
value
treating
harper
condition
supra
became
primary
means
dealing
lodging
book
hearing
petrich
reports
patient
still
able
negotiate
treatment
staff
work
collectively
idea
extent
psychosis
working
relationship
upon
build
internal
external
controls
book
loeken
reports
lack
participation
therapy
recommended
involuntary
medication
policy
continue
use
forcing
psychotropics
harper
also
provoked
counterproductive
behavior
book
report
petrich
harper
assault
male
nurse
damage
television
context
complaining
medication
side
effects
overall
issue
involuntary
medications
side
effects
major
issue
management
book
therapist
report
harper
indicated
going
destroy
unit
property
medications
stopped
recently
destroyed
inmates
stereo
example
youngberg
romeo
parham
inapposite
neither
involved
care
presumptively
competent
individual
romeo
profoundly
retarded
adult
mental
capacity
child
committed
state
hospital
treatment
appellees
children
addition
deprivations
liberty
issue
cases
use
physical
restraints
youngberg
institutionalization
parham
fall
far
short
harper
interest
refusing
drugs
potentially
permanent
fatal
side
effects
cf
bee
greaves
ca
forcible
medication
psychotropics
reasonably
related
prison
security
cert
denied
necessary
reach
question
whether
decision
force
psychotropic
drugs
competent
person
must
approved
judge
administrative
tribunal
professionals
members
prison
staff
order
conclude
mechanism
policy
violates
procedural
due
process
choice
medical
experts
one
hand
judges
choice
decisionmakers
biased
revised
policy
authorizes
consecutive
days
involuntary
medication
committee
approval
required
adds
committee
hearing
review
continuing
involuntary
medication
every
days
thereafter
also
bars
current
treating
personnel
sitting
committee
lodging
book
policy
pp
regular
soc
staff
committee
members
susceptible
implicit
explicit
pressure
cooperation
support
orders
support
instructive
month
month
year
year
review
panel
always
voted
medication
despite
scientific
literature
showing
periodic
respites
drugs
advisable
prolonged
use
antipsychotic
drugs
proper
medical
need
clear
compelling
psychologists
brief
omitted
harper
prescription
entries
november
december
made
per
dr
petrich
lodging
book
primary
encounter
reports
harper
return
soc
december
loeken
became
primary
physician
committees
approved
involuntary
medication
although
petrich
committees
sat
next
three
review
committees
voting
authorize
forced
medication
january
trial
finding
app
pet
cert
cites
vitek
jones
parham
previous
cases
involving
medical
decisions
implicating
similar
liberty
interests
approved
use
similar
internal
decisionmakers
ante
aside
greater
liberty
interest
implicated
forced
psychotropic
medication
soc
decisionmakers
face
different
demands
professional
counterparts
vitek
parham
vitek
nebraska
state
transfer
policy
issue
affected
prisoners
determined
mentally
ill
adequately
treated
within
penal
complex
found
determination
necessity
transfer
treatment
question
essentially
medical
made
fairly
professionals
meaningful
hearing
similarly
understood
civil
commitment
decision
issue
parham
involve
examination
child
review
medical
records
diagnosis
determination
whether
child
likely
benefit
institutionalized
care
emphasizing
hat
best
child
individual
medical
decision
child
requires
procedures
sought
reach
accurate
medical
determination
patient
treatment
needs
without
reference
institution
separate
interests
concluded
despite
positions
inside
nebraska
prison
georgia
hospital
medical
professionals
capable
exercising
independence
professional
judgment
required
due
process
none
medical
professionals
soc
charged
making
medication
decisions
light
inmate
impact
institution
needs
claim
independence
lodging
book
policy
notes
inmate
may
bring
personal
restraint
petition
seek
extraordinary
writ
rules
app
proc
ante
however
involuntary
medication
decision
demands
existence
soc
policy
attests
meaningful
administrative
review
deprivation
liberty
merely
existence
collateral
judicial
mechanisms
cf
ingraham
wright
lodging
book
indeed
psychiatric
security
attendant
doctor
made
first
recorded
request
involuntary
medication
harper
attempted
pull
guard
hand
food
slot
guard
filed
disciplinary
infraction
report
concluded
suggestion
inmate
need
involuntary
medication
threat
safety
security
institution
book
five
days
later
petrich
citing
incident
recommended
involuntary
medication
book
harper
transferred
november
washington
state
reformatory
psychiatrist
multidisciplinary
advisory
committee
found
date
exhibited
behavior
presence
committee
members
custody
staff
qualify
involuntary
medication
policy
long
history
recurrent
difficulty
best
tell
soc
instituted
involuntary
policy
continued
basis
past
bad
faith
however
data
available
us
book
emphasis
added
ante
addington
texas
held
medical
conditions
civil
commitment
must
proved
clear
convincing
evidence
purpose
standard
proof
reduce
chances
inappropriate
decisions
less
meaningful
factfinders
professionals
judges
jurors
lodging
book
policy
prolixin
decanoate
example
highly
potent
behavior
modifier
markedly
extended
duration
effect
onset
hours
injection
effects
last
weeks
physician
desk
reference
ed
prisoner
introduced
may
consult
appointed
adviser
commencement
hearing
harper
adviser
november
nurse
practitioner
washington
state
reformatory
asked
harper
three
questions
hearing
lodging
book
hearing
five
advisers
appointed
harper
never
spoke
hearings
five
apparently
staff
soc
soc
psychiatric
social
worker
hyden
sat
soc
assistant
superintendent
next
committee
reapproved
harper
medication
prison
chaplain
two
registered
nurses
correctional
officer
book
hearings
many
require
judicial
determination
incompetence
findings
substituted
judgment
patient
inmate
refuses
psychotropic
drugs
riese
mary
hospital
medical
center
cal
app
cal
rptr
dist
review
granted
dism
people
medina
en
banc
boyd
mental
commitment
ind
rogers
commissioner
dept
mental
health
mass
jarvis
levine
opinion
justices
rivers
katz
mental
health
state
ex
rel
jones
gerhardstein
harper
due
process
claim
ante
first
amendment
equal
protection
state
constitutional
tort
claims
yet
considered
washington
state
courts