skip navigation


Register for Latest Research

Stay Informed
Register with NCJRS to receive NCJRS's biweekly e-newsletter JUSTINFO and additional periodic emails from NCJRS and the NCJRS federal sponsors that highlight the latest research published or sponsored by the Office of Justice Programs.

NCJRS Abstract

The document referenced below is part of the NCJRS Virtual Library collection. To conduct further searches of the collection, visit the Virtual Library. See the Obtain Documents page for direction on how to access resources online, via mail, through interlibrary loans, or in a local library.


NCJ Number: 70544 Find in a Library
Title: When Treatment Becomes Coercion - A Legal Perspective
Journal: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences  Volume:347  Dated:(June 20, 1980)  Pages:199-208
Author(s): A H Einhorn
Date Published: 1980
Page Count: 10
Format: Document
Language: English
Country: United States of America
Annotation: This paper explores the emerging 'right' to refuse treatment in light of judicial efforts to adapt that right to the day-to-day realities of institutional psychiatric care.
Abstract: While many of the early right-to-refuse cases have recognized such a right only in circumstances involving the use of aversive and intrusive treatment modalities--eg., psychosurgery, electroconvulsive therapy, aversive reinforcement conditioning--or in circumstances where modalities otherwise customarily employed had been used for experimentation or punishment, recent court decisions have extended the right to refuse to include customary and accepted forms of treatment. In Rennie v. Klein, a Federal court held that involuntary psychiatric patients possess a qualified right to refuse psychotropic medication. The initial decision typified the impracticality and inappropriateness of traditional judicial mechanisms for everyday treatment decisions regarding the mentally ill. A second ruling, Rennie II, established a mechanism for the enforcement of patients' rights. This order provided for (1) informed written consent; (2) patient advocates; (3) informal review by an independent psychiatrist before an involuntary patient can be forcibly medicated; (4) enforcement of voluntary patients' right to refuse treatment; and (5) forced medication only in emergency circumstances. In an improvement upon the Rennie II mechanism, civil rights officers (CROs), selected from a panel of court-appointed qualified psychiatrists, would review and evaluate treatment decisions either when the patient's ability to render such a decision is alleged to be impaired or when the patient refuses treatment considered essential to his well-being. All decisions of the CRO would be subject to appeal to the local court of general jurisdiction and the CRO would be protected from liability for any injury resulting from a good faith decisions rendered by him. Twenty-one references are appended.
Index Term(s): Court ordered institutional reform; Involuntary treatment; Mentally ill offenders; Psychiatric services
To cite this abstract, use the following link:

*A link to the full-text document is provided whenever possible. For documents not available online, a link to the publisher's website is provided. Tell us how you use the NCJRS Library and Abstracts Database - send us your feedback.