Right to Treatment Flashcards
Who is the father of the concept of Right to Treatment?
Morton Burnbaum. He proposed in 1960 that the right to tx should be constitutionally protected by the 14th A right to Due Process.
Rouse v Cameron
established the right to tx and the right to an individualized tx plan
Wyatt v Stickney
DC Circuit. established minimal hospital standards including:
- humane environment
- adequate qualified staff
- individualized tx plans
Reasoning: To deprive any citizen of liberty upon the altruistic theory that the confinement is for humane, therapeutic reasons and then provide inadequate tx violates Due Process. (quid pro quo)
Wyatt v Adderholt
5th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the quid pro quo theory of the Wyatt v Stickney ruling.
(The USSC did not - see O’Connor v Donaldson, 1975, and Youngberg v Romeo, 1982.)
Youngberg v Romeo
USSC 1982.
Facts: Nicholas Romeo was profoundly ID 33yo hospitalized in PA. He was injured 63x in 2yrs. His mother alleged that he had a constitutional rt to safe conditions of confinement, freedom from bodily restraint, and a rt to training or habilitation.
Holding:
Under 14A DP clause, pts have liberty interests to:
- reasonably safe conditions of confinement
- freedom from unreasonable bodily restraints
- such minimally adequate training as reasonable may be required to accomplish the first 2 interests.
Training was not required only insofar as needed to support the rt to freedom from restraint and the rt to safety.
There was no finding of any general rt to tx.
Liability may only be imposed when a professional’s decision is “such a substantial departure from accepted PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT… as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such judgment.” = “professional judgment rule”
professional judgment rule
Youngberg v Romeo, USSC 1982
A decision made by a professional would be “presumptively valid.” Liability may only be imposed when a decision is “such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment… as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment.” By choosing a standard of “substantial departure” from acceptable professional judgment (higher than the standard applied in malpractice suits), the Court ensured that only egregious cases are likely to be filed.
O’Connor v Donaldson
Donaldson involuntarily hospitalized for 15 yrs in FL. Refused meds 2/2 Christian Scientist. College friends offered to care for him, but hospital refused to discharge him. Federal district court awarded him compensatory and punitive damages. 5th Circuit Ct of Appeals affirmed, finding that a person confined against his will had a “constitutional rt to receive such individual tx as will give him a reasonable opportunity to be cured or to improve his mental condition.” USSC reversed and remanded on the Q of damages, avoiding the rt to tx issue and limiting discussion to Qs of confinement: “The State cannot constitutionally confine, w/o more, a non-dangerous individual who is capable of surviving safely in freedom by himself or w/the help of willing and responsible family members/friends.”
No actual constitutional rt to tx was found. The quid pro quo theory (where tx justifies confinement, from Wyatt v Stickney) was rejected.
