Civil Commitment

Question 1

Addington v. Texas (1979)

Answer 1

burden of proof on the petitioner/the state

which must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the detainee meets the statutory criteria for commitment

Question 2

Baxstrom v. Herold (1966)

Answer 2

Detainment of criminally insane patients unconstitutional, had to be processed through state civil commitment

Question 3

Canterbury v. Spence (1972)

Answer 3

reasonable professional standard for disclosure

Canterbury guideline: resulted in detailed disclosures of potential risks and benefits to medical procedures

Question 4

Foucha v. Louisiana (1992)

Answer 4

NGRI patient could not remain committed in the absence of mental illness

Question 5

Jones v. United States (1983)

Answer 5

NGRI could be used as a per se commitment - it establishes mental illness and violence to establish dangerous

Question 6

Lake v. Cameron (1966)

Answer 6

concept of “least restrictive alternative”

Question 7

Lessard v. Schmidt (1972)

Answer 7

WI civil commitment procedure was unconstitutional

inadequate notice of charges and rights, detention longer than 48 hours without a probable cause hearing, commitment based on hearsay evidence and psychiatric evidence presented without the patient’s privilege against self-incrimination, and commitment without proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the patient is both mentally ill and dangerous

Question 8

O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975)

Answer 8

involuntary confinement must be based on DTS, DTO, or to receive treatment

a finding of mental illness alone does not warrant involuntary hospitalization; cannot be just for custodial care

Question 9

Rennie v. Klein (1978, 1983)

Answer 9

involuntarily committed, legally competent patient who refused medication had a right to professional medical review of the treating psychiatrist’s decision

Question 10

Wyatt v. Stickney (1971)

Answer 10

Court defined “minimal standard of care”

Question 11

Rogers v. Okin (1980)

Answer 11

prisoners and competent mental patients have the right to refuse treatment.

requires a court hearing before a patient may be involuntarily medicated

Question 12

Youngberg v. Romeo (1982)

Answer 12

involuntarily committed do have liberty interests in safe confinement and freedom from bodily restraint

institutions can only be held liable for infringements on liberty interests when the decision is a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment

Question 13

US v. Salerno (1987)

Answer 13

detain arrestee due to dangerousness

Question 14

Washington v. Harper (1990)

Answer 14

SCOTUS affirmed that depriving Harper of a judicial hearing for medication prior to treatment violated due process

Question 15

Zinermon v. Burch (1990)

Answer 15

A signature on a consent form is not sufficient, a person must know what it is

Diminished capacity requires safeguards

Question 16

Parham v. JR and JL (1979)

Answer 16

parents should be allowed to maintain a substantial, if not dominant role in decision making (barring neglect, abuse, etc); parents consent does not always carry absolute and unreviewable discretion; could be internal hospital matter; children can be granted access to emergency medical/mental health treatment without parental consent