Reviews

Does your patient have the right to refuse medications?

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

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.

An update to the rights-driven (Rogers) model. Other states, such as Ohio, have adopted the Rogers model and addressed issues that arose subsequent to the aforementioned case. In Steele v Hamilton County,¹³ Jeffrey Steele was admitted and later civilly committed to the hospital. After 2 months, an involuntary medication hearing was completed in which 3 psychiatrists concluded that, although Mr. Steele was not a danger to himself or others while in the hospital, he would ultimately benefit from medications.

The probate court acknowledged that Mr. Steele lacked capacity and required hospitalization. However, because he was not imminently dangerous, medication should not be used involuntarily. After a series of appeals, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that a court may authorize the administration of an antipsychotic medication against a patient’s wishes without a finding of dangerousness when clear and convincing evidence exists that:

the patient lacks the capacity to give or withhold informed consent regarding treatment
the proposed medication is in the patient’s best interest
no less intrusive treatment will be as effective in treating the mental illness.

This ruling set a precedent that dangerousness is not a requirement for involuntary medications.

Treatment-driven (Rennie) model. As in the rights-driven model, in the treatment-driven model, Ms. T would retain the constitutional right to refuse treatment. However, the models differ in the amount of procedural due process required. The treatment-driven model derives from Rennie v Klein,¹⁴ in which John Rennie, a patient at Ancora State Psychiatric Hospital in New Jersey, filed a suit regarding the right of involuntarily committed patients to refuse antipsychotic medications. The Third Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that, if professional judgment deems a patient to be a danger to himself or others, then antipsychotics may be administered over individual objection. This professional judgment is typically based on the opinion of the treating physician, along with a second physician or panel.

Utah model. This model is based on A.E. and R.R. v Mitchell,¹⁵ in which the Utah District Court ruled that a civilly committed patient has no right to refuse treatment. This Utah model was created after state legislature determined that, in order to civilly commit a patient, hospitalization must be the least restrictive alternative and the patient is incompetent to consent to treatment. Unlike the 2 previous models, competency to refuse medications is not separated from a previous finding of civil commitment, but rather, they occur simultaneously.

Continue to: Rights in unique situations

Does your patient have the right to refuse medications?

References

Pages

Recommended Reading