Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-cphqk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-11T14:53:14.167Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Patient's Right to Refuse Anti-Psychotic Drugs: The Court of Appeals Decision in Rogers v. Okin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2021

Richard Cole
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

On October 29, 1979, Judge Joseph Tauro of the United States District Court for Massachusetts issued a nationally publicized decision in a case entitled Rogers v. Okin, declaring that voluntary and involuntarily committed patients at Boston State Hospital had a constitutional right to refuse treatment in non-emergency situations. The suit, brought as a class action, was filed on April 25, 1975, by seven patients who were either voluntarily admitted or involuntarily committed to the May and Austin Units at Boston State Hospital. On April 30, 1975, a temporary restraining order was issued by the District Court enjoining the doctors at Boston State Hospital from continuing their practice of forcibly medicating patients in non-emergencies. This temporary order remained in effect through the trial and until the District Court issued its permanent order in October 1979.

The ruling was widely criticized by some psychiatrists as an unwarranted intrusion by the courts into the practice of medicine. However, others within the medical and the legal communities considered the decision a major victory for the civil and human rights of institutionalized patients.

Type
Article
Information
Medicolegal News , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , February 1981 , pp. 10 - 13
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of Law, Medicine and Ethics 1981

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Rogers v. Okin, 478 F. Supp. 1342 (D. Mass. 1979).Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, 634 F.2d 650 (1st Cir. 1980).Google Scholar
See, e.g., Boston Globe, Nov. 26, 1980, at 17; December 2, 1980, at 19.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 1, at 1366, citing Superintendent of Belchertown State School v. Saikewicz, 370 N.E.2d 417, 424 (Mass. 1977) [hereinafter cited as Saikewicz].Google Scholar
Id., citing Saikewicz, supra note 4, at 426.Google Scholar
Id. at 1366, 1369.Google Scholar
Id. at 1367.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 2, at 653.Google Scholar
Id. at 653–54, 656, 650.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 1, at 1365.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 2, at 654–55.Google Scholar
Id. at 655.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 1, at 1369.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 2, at 655.Google Scholar
Id. at 656.Google Scholar
Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418, 426 (1979).Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 1, at 1359 (authority for the proposition that “commitment … is not an adjudication of incompetence” is derived from Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. c. 123,§25).Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 2, at 661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Id. at 660.Google Scholar
A case now before the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, In re Loring, No. 2257, concerns this issue.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 2, at 661, citing Saikewicz, supra note 4, at 429–32 (adoption of substituted judgment standard).Google Scholar
In re Spring, 405 N.E.2d 115, 119 (Mass. 1980).Google Scholar
Doe v. Doe, 385 N.E.2d 995, 1000 (Mass. 1979); In re Spring, supra note 22, at 121.Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 1, at 1361; Klein, Rennie v., 462 F. Supp. 1131, 1141 (D. N.J. 1978).Google Scholar
Rogers v. Okin, supra note 2, at 660.Google Scholar
Id.Google Scholar
Id. at 661.Google Scholar
Id. n.10.Google Scholar