Reviews

Does your patient have the right to refuse medications?

Current Psychiatry. 2020 April;19(4):22-30

A brief guide to the legal aspects of administering involuntary medications.

References

1. Laffey P. Psychiatric therapy in Georgian Britain. Psychol Med. 2003;33(7):1285-1297.
2. Porter R. Madness: a brief history. New York, NY: Oxford Press; 2002.
3. Stetka B, Watson J. Odd and outlandish psychiatric treatments throughout history. Medscape Psychiatry. https://www.medscape.com/features/slideshow/odd-psychiatric-treatments. Published April 13, 2016. Accessed February 26, 2020.
4. Rouse v Cameron, 373, F2d 451 (DC Cir 1966).
5. Wyatt v Stickney, 325 F Supp 781 (MD Ala 1971).
6. Administrative Office of the US Courts. Comparing federal and state Courts. United States Courts. https://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/court-role-and-structure/comparing-federal-state-courts. Accessed February 26, 2020.
7. Drogin E, Williams C. Introduction to the Legal System. In: Gold L, Frierson R, eds. Textbook of forensic psychiatry, 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018:80-83.
8. Appelbaum P, Grisso T. Assessing patients’ capacities to consent to treatment. N Engl J Med. 1988;319(25):1635-1638.
9. Kambam P. Informed consent and competence. In: Rosnar R, Scott C, eds. Principles and practice of forensic psychiatry, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press; 2017:115-121.
10. Wall B, Anfang S. Legal regulation of psychiatric treatment. In: Gold L, Frierson R, eds. Textbook of forensic psychiatry, 3rd ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Association Publishing; 2018:306-333.
11. Pinals D, Nesbit A, Hoge S. Treatment refusal in psychiatric practice. In: Rosnar R, Scott C, eds. Principles and practice of forensic psychiatry, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC press; 2017:155-163.
12. Rogers v Commissioner, 390 489 (Mass 1983).
13. Steele v Hamilton County, 90 Ohio St3d 176 (Ohio 2000).
14. Rennie v Klein, 462 F Supp 1131 (D NJ 1978).
15. AE and RR v Mitchell, 724 F.2d 864 (10th Cir 1983).
16. Washington v Harper, 494 US 210 (1990).
17. Sell v US, 539 US 166 (2003).
18. Guardianship of Richard Roe III, 383 415, 435 (Mass 1981).
19. Georgetown College v Jones, 331 F2d 1010 (DC Cir 1964).
20. Superintendent of Belchertown v Saikewicz, 370 NE 2d 417 (1977).
21. Cruzan v Director, 497 US 261 (1990).
22. Owiti J, Bowers L. A literature review: refusal of psychotropic medication in acute inpatient psychiatric care. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2011;18(7):637-647.
23. Appelbaum P, Gutheil T. “Rotting with their rights on”: constitutional theory and clinical reality in drug refusal by psychiatric patients. Bull Am Acad Psychiatry Law. 1979;7(3):306-315.
24. Adelugba OO, Mela M, Haq IU. Psychotropic medication refusal: reasons and patients’ perception at a secure forensic psychiatric treatment centre. J Forensic Sci Med. 2016;2(1):12-17.
25. Agid O, Kapur S, Arenovich T, et al. Delayed-onset hypothesis of antipsychotic action: a hypothesis tested and rejected. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2003;60(12):1228.

Ms. T, age 48, is brought to the psychiatric emergency department after the police find her walking along the highway at 3:00 am. Ms. T paces back and forth, gesticulating while she tries to explain her concerns related to an alien invasion, contaminated drinking water, and “FBI microchipping.” Urine and serum toxicology studies are negative. On the unit, she is seclusive and mumbles nonsensical statements about having to “take out the leader of the opposition.” Ms. T consistently refuses recommended medications (antipsychotics) because she believes the treatment team is trying to poison her. She is subsequently civilly committed to the inpatient psychiatric facility.

Once involuntarily committed, does Ms. T have the right to refuse treatment?

Every psychiatrist has faced the predicament of a patient who refuses treatment. This creates an ethical dilemma between respecting the patient’s autonomy vs forcing treatment to ameliorate symptoms and reduce suffering. This article addresses case law related to the models for administering psychiatric medications over objection. We also discuss case law regarding court-appointed guardianship, and treating medical issues without consent. While this article provides valuable information on these scenarios, it is crucial to remember that the legal processes required to administer medications over patient objection are state-specific. In order to ensure the best practice and patient care, you must research the legal procedures specific to your jurisdiction, consult your clinic/hospital attorney, and/or contact your state’s mental health board for further clarification.

History of involuntary treatment

Prior to the 1960s, Ms. T would likely have been unable to refuse treatment. All patients were considered involuntary, and the course of treatment was decided solely by the psychiatric institution. Well into the 20th century, patients with psychiatric illness remained feared and stigmatized, which led to potent and potentially harsh methods of treatment. Some patients experienced extreme isolation, whipping, bloodletting, experimental use of chemicals, and starvation (Table 1^1-3).

With the advent of psychotropic medications and a focus on civil liberties, the psychiatric mindset began to change from hospital-based treatment to a community-based approach. The value of psychotherapy was recognized, and by the 1960s, the establishment of community mental health centers was gaining momentum.

In the context of these changes, the civil rights movement pressed for stronger legislation regarding autonomy and the quality of treatment available to patients with psychiatric illness. In the 1960s and 1970s, Rouse v Cameron⁴ and Wyatt v Stickney⁵ dealt with a patient’s right to receive treatment while involuntarily committed. However, it was not until the 1980s that the courts addressed the issue of a patient’s right to refuse treatment.

The judicial system: A primer

When reviewing case law and its applicability to your patients, it is important to understand the various court systems. The judicial system is divided into state and federal courts, which are subdivided into trial, appellate, and supreme courts. When decisions at either the state or federal level require an ultimate decision maker, the US Supreme Court can choose to hear the case, or grant certiorari, and make a ruling, which is then binding law.⁶ Decisions made by any court are based on various degrees of stringency, called standards of proof (Table 2⁷).