Rogers v. Okin

Last updated

Rogers v. Okin was a landmark case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit considered whether a person diagnosed with mental illness committed to a state psychiatric facility and assumed to be competent, has the right to make treatment decisions in non-emergency conditions. [1]

Contents

Circumstances

This case began as a federal class action suit filed in 1975 by patients at Boston State Hospital challenging the hospital's restraint, seclusion and involuntary treatment policies in Federal District Court. Seven plaintiffs were named. The lawsuit sought to enjoin the hospital from medicating patients against their will and from isolating them in seclusion cells. Greater Boston Legal Services represented the patients. [2]

The district court held that the competency of committed patients is assumed until a patient is adjudicated incompetent, holding that forced medication was an invasion of privacy and an affront to human dignity as such patients are capable of making non-emergency treatment decisions. Only under emergency conditions could such a patient be forcibly medicated where there was a substantial likelihood of physical harm to the patient's self or others. Voluntary patients had the same rights. [1]

The case was appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit which affirmed the lower courts ruling that patients had the right to decide for themselves whether to accept treatment of antipsychotic drugs and that mental illness did not render a person incompetent. However, the court rejected the lower court's standard for determining when medications could be given involuntarily, determining that the evaluating physician was to make ultimate medication decision. The court disagreed with the trial judge that forcible medication, absent an emergency, could be administered only after an adjudication of incompetence. It also rejected the trial court's holding that voluntary patients could refuse medication, stating that a voluntary patient who wished to refuse treatment should leave the hospital. [2]

The state appealed on a writ of certiorari the US Supreme Court for review The Supreme Court granted certiorari but then remanded the case back to the Court of Appeals in the light of Richard Roe. [3] The American Psychological Association submitted a brief supporting the plaintiffs to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. [1]

Decision

The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision was consistent with its ruling in Richard Roe. The decision required that a court must hold a full evidentiary hearing, with counsel representing both sides and expert witness if needed, to make the decision whether an incompetent patient should be treated. This determination was to be made on the basis of "substituted judgment", that is, on an estimation of what the patient would have desired, were he competent. [2]

Significance

Throughout most of the 1970s, the legal assumption was that, once hospitalized, a patient had no role in treatment decisions. Hospitals could medicate and use other means of control or treatment without consultation with the patient or the patient's family. [4]

This decision was one of the first that contributed to a growing body of case law recognizing that prisoners and competent mental patients have the right to refuse treatment. [5] Rogers v. Okin set forth a procedure that would copied by many other states. This procedure requires a court hearing before a patient may be involuntarily medicated. [2]

See also

Footnotes

  1. 1 2 3 Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291 (1982).
  2. 1 2 3 4 "Rogers v. Okin 478 F.Supp.1342(D.Mass.1979), 634". psychlaws.org. Archived from the original on 2008-05-21. Retrieved 2008-02-16.
  3. ↑ "In the Matter of Guardianship of Richard Roe III, 421 N.E. Rep. 2d 40". psychlaws.org. Archived from the original on 2006-09-25. Retrieved 2018-05-12.
  4. ↑ Melton, Gary; Petrila, John; Poythress, Norman G. (1997). Psychological Evaluations for the Courts: A Handbook for Mental Health Professionals and Lawyers (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press. pp.  149–150. ISBN   1-57230-236-4.
  5. ↑ Monahan, John; Steadman, Henry J. (1983). Mentally Disordered Offenders: Perspectives from Law and Social Sciences. Plenum Publishing Corporation. pp. 16–17. ISBN   0-306-41151-2.

Related Research Articles

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act regulates involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the state of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. The bipartisan bill was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank D. Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

In United States and Canadian law, competence concerns the mental capacity of an individual to participate in legal proceedings or transactions, and the mental condition a person must have to be responsible for his or her decisions or acts. Competence is an attribute that is decision-specific. Depending on various factors which typically revolve around mental function integrity, an individual may or may not be competent to make a particular medical decision, a particular contractual agreement, to execute an effective deed to real property, or to execute a will having certain terms.

Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.

Vacco v. Quill, 521 U.S. 793 (1997), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States regarding the right to die. It ruled 9-0 that a New York ban on physician-assisted suicide was constitutional, and preventing doctors from assisting their patients, even those terminally ill and/or in great pain, was a legitimate state interest that was well within the authority of the state to regulate. In brief, this decision established that, as a matter of law, there was no constitutional guarantee of a "right to die."

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Involuntary hospitalization of Joyce Patricia Brown</span>

Joyce Patricia Brown, also known as Billie Boggs, was a homeless woman who was forcibly hospitalized in New York City in 1987. She was the first person hospitalized under a Mayor Ed Koch administration program which expanded the city's ability to forcibly commit homeless New Yorkers to psychiatric hospitals. Between 1987–88, Brown worked with the New York Civil Liberties Union to challenge her hospitalization in a case which attracted significant media attention. During the ensuing trial, her lawyers argued that her behaviors were not in line with social expectations but did not rise to the level of posing a danger to herself or others. Brown took the stand, and her clarity while testifying became part of the public conversation. The trial ended in her favor, and while the city won on appeal she was ultimately released after a subsequent case determined that the city could not forcibly medicate her. Following her release, she made several television appearances and spoke about homelessness at Harvard Law School, but came to avoid the press. Her case sparked national conversations about how best to care for the people with mental illness.

Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003), is a decision in which the United States Supreme Court imposed stringent limits on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent and able to be tried. Specifically, the court held that lower courts could do so only under limited circumstances in which specified criteria had been met. In the case of Charles Sell, since the lower court had failed to determine that all the appropriate criteria for court-ordered forcible treatment had been met, the order to forcibly medicate the defendant was reversed.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Florida State Hospital</span> Hospital in Florida, United States

Florida State Hospital (FSH) is a hospital and psychiatric hospital in Chattahoochee, Florida. Established in 1876, it was Florida's only state mental institution until 1947. It currently has a capacity of 1,042 patients. The hospital's current Administration Building is on the National Register of Historic Places.

In the United States criminal justice system, a competency evaluation is an assessment of the ability of a defendant to understand and rationally participate in a court process.

<i>Rennie v. Klein</i>

Rennie v. Klein, 462 F. Supp. 1131, was a case heard in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey in 1978 to decide whether an involuntarily committed mental patient has a constitutional right to refuse psychiatric medication. It was the first case to establish that such a patient has the right to refuse medication in the United States.

Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case in which an incarcerated inmate sued the state of Washington over the issue of involuntary medication, specifically antipsychotic medication.

Foucha v. Louisiana, 504 U.S. 71 (1992), was a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court addressed the criteria for the continued commitment of an individual who had been found not guilty by reason of insanity. The individual remained involuntarily confined on the justification that he was potentially dangerous even though he no longer suffered from the mental illness that served as a basis for his original commitment.

Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U.S. 715 (1972), was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court that determined a U.S. state violated due process by involuntarily committing a criminal defendant for an indefinite period of time solely on the basis of his permanent incompetency to stand trial on the charges filed against him.

Perry v. Louisiana, 498 U.S. 38 (1990), was a United States Supreme Court case over the legality of forcibly medicating a death row inmate with a mental disorder, to render him competent to be executed.

Riggins v. Nevada, 504 U.S. 127 (1992), is a U.S. Supreme Court case in which the court decided whether a mentally ill person can be forced to take antipsychotic medication while they are on trial to allow the state to make sure they remain competent during the trial.

Frendak v. United States, 408 A.2d 364 is a landmark case in which District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided that a judge could not impose an insanity defense over the defendant's objections.

<i>Starson v Swayze</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Starson v Swayze, 2003 SCC 32, [2003] 1 S.C.R. 722 was an important case at the Supreme Court of Canada that considered the legal requirements for determining if a person is capable of making decisions regarding their medical treatment.

This disability rights timeline lists events relating to the civil rights of people with disabilities in the United States of America, including court decisions, the passage of legislation, activists' actions, significant abuses of people with disabilities, and the founding of various organizations. Although the disability rights movement itself began in the 1960s, advocacy for the rights of people with disabilities started much earlier and continues to the present.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual with symptoms of severe mental illness is court-ordered into treatment in a hospital (inpatient) or in the community (outpatient).

Sterilization law is the area of law, within reproductive rights, that gives a person the right to choose or refuse reproductive sterilization and governs when the government may limit this fundamental right. Sterilization law includes federal and state constitutional law, statutory law, administrative law, and common law. This article primarily focuses on laws concerning compulsory sterilization that have not been repealed or abrogated and are still good laws, in whole or in part, in each jurisdiction.

<i>Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia</i>

Doe ex. rel. Tarlow v. District of Columbia, 489 F.3d 376, is a unanimous decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, written by Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in which the Court upheld a 2003 District of Columbia statute that stated the conditions for authorizing a non-emergency surgical procedure on a mentally incompetent person. This case developed out of an appeal to a district court decision that was brought on behalf of a mentally incompetent patient who was subjected to an abortion without her consent and another patient who was subjected to an eye surgery without the patient's consent. Under the appellate court's interpretation of the statute, a court located in the District of Columbia must apply the "best interest of the patient" standard to a person who was never competent, and the court must apply the "known wishes of the patient" standard to a person who was once competent. The appellate decision was remanded to the District Court.

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.