The right to refuse treatment and the movement for mental health reform

The right to refuse treatment is the most controversial of the rights of mental patients, and usually polarizes the movement for mental health reform between providers of care and external activist reformers. A broad alliance supported earlier struggles for recognition of patients' rights, but most professionals oppose recognizing this most extreme right of treatment refusal. Professional opposition to treatment refusal is not based on a wide extent of actual refusal; rather it derives from a defense against challenges to professional and institutional autonomy, an opposition to legal interference, and a belief that the community as well as the patient must be protected. These three reasons for opposition are examined by reviewing studies of attitudes toward patients' rights, knowledge about patients' rights, and implementation of patients' rights. Finally, the implications of these studies for future directions in the movement for patients' rights are examined.     

Jones v. Gerhardstein: the involuntarily committed mental patient's right to refuse treatment with psychotropic drugs

The question of whether an involuntary committed mental patient has a fundamental right to refuse treatment with psychotropic drugs continues to be a subject of much debate. Over the past twenty-five years, psychotropic drugs have become the most common form of treatment for the mentally ill. For many patients, these drugs provide substantial benefits; for others, however, they produce severe, sometimes debilitating, side effects. Because of the possibility of serious harm to the patient and because of the potential for abuse of drug treatment by psychiatric staffs, the mental health bar generally has argued for increased procedural protection for mental patients. In Jones v. Gerhardstein, the Wisconsin Supreme Court responded to these concerns by requiring that a judicial hearing be held on the issue of a patient's competency to refuse treatment before the attending physician may administer medication without the patient's consent. This Note discusses the controversy between the legal and medical communities over treatment refusal by mentally ill patients in light of the impact of the Jones decision on institutional practice and on refusing patients. The author argues that the strictly rights-based analysis used by the Jones court has done little to benefit involuntarily committed mental patients. The author suggests alternative ways of approaching treatment refusal that might be more responsive to the distinctive needs of the mentally ill.