A journey through civil commitment.

2018 ◽  
pp. 77-82
Author(s):  
Amanda D. Zelechoski ◽  
Melinda Wolbransky ◽  
Christina L. Riggs Romaine
Keyword(s):  
Civil Commitment

The Constitutionality of Involuntary Civil Commitment of Opiate Addicts

1988 ◽  
Vol 18 (4) ◽  
pp. 641-661 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael P. Rosenthal
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Civil Commitment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Involuntary Treatment ◽  
Large Numbers ◽  
Narcotic Trafficking ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Opiate Addicts ◽  
The 1960S

This paper deals with the constitutionality of involuntary treatment of opiate addicts. Although the first laws permitting involuntary treatment of opiate addicts were enacted in the second half of the nineteenth century, addicts were not committed in large numbers until California and New York enacted new civil commitment legislation in the 1960s. Inevitably, the courts were called upon to decide if involuntary treatment was constitutional. Both the California and New York courts decided that it was. These decisions were heavily influenced by statements made by the United States Supreme Court in Robinson v. California. The Robinson case did not actually involve the constitutionality of involuntary treatment; it involved the question of whether it was constitutional for a state to make addiction a crime. Nevertheless, the Supreme Court declared (in a dictum) that a state might establish a program of compulsory treatment for opiate addicts either to discourage violation of its criminal laws against narcotic trafficking or to safeguard the general health or welfare of its inhabitants. Presumably because the Robinson case did not involve the constitutionality of involuntary treatment of opiate addicts, the Supreme Court did not go into that question as deeply as it might have. The California and New York courts, in turn, relied too much on this dictum and did not delve deeply into the question. The New York courts did a better job than the California courts, but their work too was not as good as it should have been.

Outpatient Civil Commitment

1987 ◽  
Vol 144 (5) ◽  
pp. 694-a-695 ◽  
Author(s):  
GREGORY B. LEONG
Keyword(s):  
Civil Commitment

Perceived Benefits and Harms of Involuntary Civil Commitment for Opioid Use Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 48 (4) ◽  
pp. 718-734
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Evans ◽  
Calla Harrington ◽  
Robert Roose ◽  
Susan Lemere ◽  
David Buchanan
Keyword(s):  
Civil Commitment ◽  
Opioid Use Disorder ◽  
Opioid Use ◽  
Treatment Access ◽  
Evidence Based Treatment ◽  
Ethics Framework ◽  
Vulnerable Patients ◽  
Underserved Patients ◽  
Legal Consequences

Involuntary civil commitment (ICC) to treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) prevents imminent overdose, but also restricts autonomy and raises other ethical concerns. Using the Kass Public Health Ethics Framework, we identified ICC benefits and harms. Benefits include: protection of vulnerable, underserved patients; reduced legal consequences; resources for families; and “on-demand” treatment access. Harms include: stigmatizing and punitive experiences; heightened family conflict and social isolation; eroded patient self-determination; limited or no provision of OUD medications; and long-term overdose risk. To use ICC ethically, it should be recognized as comprising vulnerable patients worthy of added protections; be a last resort option; utilize consensual, humanizing processes; provide medications and other evidence-based-treatment; integrate with existing healthcare systems; and demonstrate effective outcomes before diffusion. ICC to OUD treatment carries significant potential harms that, if unaddressed, may outweigh its benefits. Findings can inform innovations for ensuring that ICC is used in an ethically responsible way.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document