|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.
||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
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).