Protecting our mentally ill: a critique of the role of Indiana state courts in protecting involuntarily committed mental patients' right to refuse medication.

Sociology, 1997, Virginia Commonwealth University. Special thanks to my wife, Vickey, and to my family, Mike, Denise, and Daniel, for their love and encouragement. 1. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 316 (1982); Mills v. Rogers, 457 U.S. 291, 299 (1982); see also James A. King, Comment, An Involuntary Mental Patient’s Right to Refuse Treatment with Antipsychotic Drugs: A Reassessment, 48 OHIO ST. L.J. 1135, 1135-38 (1987). 2. Mills, 457 U.S. at 299; Steven Mintz, The Nightmare of Forcible Medication: The New York Court of Appeals Protects the Rights of the Mentally Ill Under the State Constitution, 53 BROOK. L. REV. 885, 888-90 (1987) (discussing Mills). 3. 457 U.S. 307 (1982). 4. Id. at 321-22. 5. See William M. Brooks, Reevaluating Substantive Due Process as a Source of Protection for Psychiatric Patients to Refuse Drugs, 31 IND. L. REV. 937, 940 (1998) (discussing the Supreme Court’s consideration of cases concerning the right to refuse medication in two other contexts: medicating a prisoner and medicating a criminal defendant to induce competency). 6. Id. at 940-41. 7. 495 N.E.2d 337 (N.Y. 1986). Protecting Our Mentally Ill: A Critique of the Role of Indiana State Courts in Protecting Involuntarily Committed Mental Patients’ Right to Refuse Medication