Mental Disabilities Law Issues
| Publication year | 1980 |
| Pages | 966 |
| Citation | Vol. 9 No. 5 Pg. 966 |
1980, May, Pg. 966. Mental Disabilities Law Issues
On October 10, 1979, the Colorado Supreme Court announced its decision in the case of Goedecke v. Colorado Department of Institutions.(fn1) This case recognizes (at least in non-emergency situations) that an involuntarily committed mental patient has both a statutory and common law right to refuse medication unless a competent tribunal has found that the person lacks the capacity to participate in decisions affecting his health or that his refusal to submit to treatment is itself irrational or unreasonable.
Since there was no finding in the case that the appellant lacked the capacity to participate in decisions affecting his health or that his refusal to submit to treatment with prolixin decanoate, an anti-psychotic drug with significant side effects, was itself irrational or unreasonable, the Court concluded that both the statutory and the common law of Colorado afford the appellant the right to withhold consent to the administration of the drug.
The decision implies, however, that if a competent tribunal determined that consent to treatment with the drug was being withheld because of an irrational or unreasonable refusal on the part of the patient or that the patient lacked the capacity to participate in such decisions, the drug could be administered over the person's objections.
Other state and federal courts across the country have been faced with similar cases in recent years and by examining the principles on which the leading cases were decided, we may be able to trace the contours of an emerging right to refuse medication.
In Massachusetts, a Federal District Court has held in Rogers v. Okin that both voluntary and involuntary mental patients have a constitutional right to refuse medication. The right is based upon fundamental privacy interests, except where there exists an emergency which "would bring about a substantial likelihood of physical harm to the patient or others," and thus bringing into play a compelling state interest.(fn2)
The court in Rogers also dealt with the issue of whether the rights of incompetent mental patients may be exercised by and through their guardians, an area which should become more significant in Colorado in the wake of the Goedecke decision and its reliance on competence as a standard. In Rogers, the court concluded that "a guardian may exercise for and on behalf of a committed mental patient any...
To continue reading
Request your trial