The analysis focuses on two issues: (1) the nature of the mental impairment necessary for civil commitment; and (2) the role of treatment in justifying ongoing psychiatric confinement. The author argues that even after the Hendricks decision, diagnoses of impulse-control disorders may prove inadequate for detaining individuals who neither pose a threat to physical safety nor are unable to provide for their basic needs. The analysis of treatment issues criticizes the proposition in Hendricks that constitutional minima are satisfied by the provision of whatever is currently available to those who may benefit from it. Instead, a more appropriate standard would require States to focus in good faith on the needs of individuals and to work toward the development of appropriate and effective treatment programs for all those who are involuntarily committed, regardless of their current susceptibility to treatment. Footnotes