{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.013723150357995227, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.45, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Reevaluating substantive due process as a source of protection for psychiatric patients to refuse drugs.

The right of psychiatrically hospitalized patients to refuse drugs has been characterized as arguably the most important subject in the area of mental health law. Numerous psychiatrists have questioned and assailed the propriety of permitting a psychiatric patient who theoretically fails to understand the need for treatment to refuse the very medication a psychiatrist has prescribed to treat the patient's mental illness. The psychiatric profession has accused the legal system of failing to take into account “clinical realities” when it broadly defines the right to refuse medication. In contrast, both the legal and medical professions recognize that psychotropic medication in general, and antipsychotic medication in particular, often produce side effects ranging in nature from short-term and merely discomforting to permanent and life-threatening. This Article will address the scope of a civilly committed patient's right to refuse medication under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause. It will first examine how federal courts, including the Supreme Court, have addressed an individual's substantive right to refuse medication. This Article will then establish that even prior to Harper and Riggins, there was ample authority to support a broad right to refuse medication under the substantive component of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This Article will then examine Supreme Court cases pertaining to the scope of substantive protections accorded by the Due Process Clause and those cases' impact on the right to refuse.