DESPITE COURT DECISIONS TO THE EFFECT THAT INVOLUNTARILY CONFINED JUVENILE PATIENTS HAVE AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO ADEQUATE TREATMENT, THE PRECEDENTAL VALUE OF SUCH DECISIONS IS NOT UNIVERSALLY RECOGNIZED. THE ARTICLE REVIEWS COURT CASE DISPOSITIONS GOING BACK TO THE FIRST RELEVANT CASE IN 1966, NOTING THAT SEVERAL COURT DECISIONS APPEARED TO BE FASHIONING A DUE PROCESS RIGHT TO TREATMENT. RATIONALES FOR SUCH A RIGHT RESTED ON THE FACT THAT THE PURPOSE OF COMMITTING A NON-DANGEROUS PERSON IS TO CARE FOR HIM, BECAUSE TREATMENT IS THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE COMMITMENT, WHILE ANOTHER LEGAL BASIS WAS CITED IN THE FACT THAT THE PATIENT MUST RECEIVE A COMPENSATION FOR THE ABRIDGMENT OF HIS RIGHT TO FREEDOM IN THE FORM OF REHABILITATIVE TREATMENT. EIGHTH AMENDMENT ARGUMENTS, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAVE ALREADY RECEIVED JUDICIAL SUPPORT. THE CONFINEMENT OF THE INVOLUNTARILY COMMITTED MENTAL PATIENT IS VIRTUALLY IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE PRISONER, WITH WHOM HE SHARES LOSS OF FREEDOM AND STIGMATIZATION. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RIGHT TO PSYCHIATRIC CARE RAISES PROBLEMS NOT CONFRONTED IN IMPLEMENTING RIGHTS TO ADEQUATE MEDICAL CARE FOR THE BODY, BUT IT MUST NEVERTHELESS TAKE PLACE, BECAUSE THE PATIENTS SUFFER AS MUCH AS THOSE PHYSICALLY ILL, ALTHOUGH IN A DIFFERENT WAY. THIS ARTICLE ARGUES FOR AN EIGHTH AMENDMENT RIGHT TO TREATMENT BASED ON A RECENT SUPREME COURT DECISION, WHICH PROMISES A SOLID CONSTITUTIONAL BASIS FOR TREATMENT RIGHTS.