Involuntary administration of psychotropic medication to mental health patient was not authorized where physician did not provide patient with written information on the side effects and risks of the treatment and alternatives to the proposed treatment, as required by the Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code, even though physician verbally explained the benefits and side effects of the treatment; verbal notification was not sufficient to insure patient's due process rights, as only after patient had opportunity to review written information at a time and in a manner of his choosing could it be determined whether patient lacked the capacity to make a reasoned decision about taking medication. U.S.C.A. Const Amend XIV; S.H.A. 405 ILCS 5/2- 102(a-5), 2-107.1(a)(4)(E). In re Richard C., 264 Ill. Dec. 234, 769 N.E.2d 1071 (App. Ct. 2d Dist. 2002).	Mental health patient was denied procedural due process at hearing for involuntary administration of medication hearing when State introduced evidence that patient's failure to attend hearing showed that she suffered disorganized thoughts, as a symptom of mental illness, even though patient did not object to such testimony at trial and patient's own attorney pursued same line of testimony on cross-examination; patient's presence at any hearing under mental health act was not mandatory. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; S.H.A. 405 ILCS 5/3-806(b, c). In re Frances K., 322 Ill. App. 3d 203, 255 Ill. Dec. 600, 749 N.E.2d 1082 (2d Dist. 2001).
To protect fundamental right of involuntarily confined psychiatric patient to control the course of his own treatment, hospital must apply for court authorization to medicate a patient over his objection, and must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) the patient is dangerous to himself or others, (2) the patient is incapable of making a reasoned treatment decision, and (3) the proposed treatment plan is narrowly tailored to give substantive effect to the patient's liberty interest. McKinney's Const. Art. 1, § 6. Matter of Gertrude K., 177 Misc. 2d 25, 675 N.Y.S.2d 790 (Sup. Ct. 1998).	Patient was denied her due process right to a fair trial on a petition for the involuntary administration of psychotropic medications where verdict forms did not distinguish the three medications at issue, such that the jurors were not afforded an opportunity to determine which medications should have been involuntarily administered or whether the benefits to the patient outweighed the harm, including the potentially harmful side effects, as to each medication; based on the testimony presented, the jury reasonably could have found that the benefits of administering medications outweighed the harm as to only two of the three medications. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 14; 405 ILCS 5/2-107.1 (1998 Bar Ed.) In re Nancy M., 317 Ill. App. 3d 167, 250 Ill. Dec. 844, 739 N.E.2d 607 (2d Dist. 2000).