Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Litigation and Use of Psychoactive Drugs in Developmental Disabilities

  • Chapter
Psychopharmacology of the Developmental Disabilities

Part of the book series: Disorders of Human Learning, Behavior, and Communication ((HUMAN LEARNING))

Abstract

Litigation, particularly in the United States, has resulted in the establishment of a number of legal rights regarding the administration of psychoactive medication to individuals with developmental disabilities. During the last 15 years, courts have fashioned rules and standards for regulating psychoactive drug use, particularly in institutional settings. Although there is general agreement among numerous jurisdictions that high professional standards be mandated for drug use, there remain substantial differences concerning the circumstances under which such medication may be administered to refusing individuals or to persons incapable of giving an informed, competent consent. The author reviews these legal developments and suggests four general principles for regulating the administration of psychoactive drugs to people of questionable competence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Abbott, M., Dawson, J., Haines, H., Hessey, E., McBride, T., & Maule, R. ( 1983, December). Towards mental health law reform: Report of the Legal Information Service/Mental Health Foundation Task Force on Revision of Mental Health Legislation, Mental Health Foundation of New Zealand.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aman, M.G. (1984). Drugs and learning in mentally retarded persons. In G.D. Burrows & J.S. Werry (Eds.), Advances in human psychopharmacology (Vol. 3, pp. 121–163 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Association on Mental Deficiency. (1973–75). Rights of mentally retarded persons. Washington, DC: AAMD Council.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annas, G.J. (1975). The rights of hospital patients. New York: Discus/Avon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Appelbaum, P.S., & Hoge, S.K. (1986). Empirical research on the effects of legal policy on the right to refuse treatment. In D. Rapoport & J. Parry (Eds.), The right to refuse antipsychotic medication (pp. 87–97 ). Washington, DC: American Bar Association’s Commission on the Mentally Disabled.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arkin, H.R. (1984). Forcible administration of antipsychotic medication: State Iaws. Journal of the American Medical Association, 144, 2620–2621.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayd, F. (1973). Rational pharmacotherapy: Once-a-day drug dosage. Diseases of the Nervous System, 34, 371–378.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, J.C. (1987). Right to refuse antipsychotic medication: Psychiatric assessment and legal decision-making. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11, 368–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beyer, H.A. (1983). Litigation with the mentally retarded. In. J. Matson & J. Mulick (Eds.), Handbook of mental retardation (pp. 79–93 ). New York: Pergamon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brakel, S., & Rock, R. (Eds.). (1971). The mentally disabled and the law. (rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bregman, S. (1984). Assertiveness training for mentally retarded adults. Mental Retardation, 22, 12–16.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, A.D. (1980). The constitutional right to refuse antipsychotic medication. Bulletin of the American Association of Psychology and Law, 8, 179–221.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, A.D. (1987). The right to refuse antipsychotic medication: Law and policy. Rutgers Law Review, 39, 339–376.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Dunphy, S.M., & Cross, J.H. (1987). Medical decision making for incompetent persons: The Massachusetts substituted judgment model. Western New England Law Review, 9, 153–167.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Floor, L., & Rosen, M. (1975). Investigating the phenomenon of helplessness in mentally retarded adults. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 565–572.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gill, M.J. (1982). Side effects of a right to refuse treatment lawsuit: The Boston State Hospital experience. In A.F. Doudera & J.P. Swazey (Eds.), Refusing treatment in mental health institutions: Values in conflict (pp. 81–87 ). Ann Arbor, MI: AUPHA Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R.M., & Verdun-Jones, S.N. (1983). The right to refuse treatment: Commonwealth developments and issues. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 6, 57–73.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R.M., & Verdun-Jones, S.N. (1986). The impact of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms upon Canadian mental health law: The dawn of a new era or business as usual? Law, Medicine & Health Care, 14, 190–197.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L. (1982). A review of the Mental Health (Amendment) Act: III. The legal position of patients while in hospital. New Law Journal, 1199–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gostin, L. (1986). Mental health services-law and practice. London: Shaw & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gualtieri, C.T., Sprague, R.L., & Cole, J.O. (1986). Tardive dyskinesia litigation and the dilemmas of neuroleptic treatment. Journal of Psychiatry & Law, 14, 187–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutheil, T.G., & Appelbaum, P. (1983). “Mind control,” “synthetic sanity,” “artificial competence,” and genuine confusion: Legally relevant effects of antipsychotic medication. Hofstra Law Review, 12, 77–120.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gutheil, T.G., & Appelbaum, P.S. (1985). The substituted judgment approach: Its difficulties and paradoxes in mental health settings. Law, Medicine & Health Care, 13, 61–64.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutheil, T.G., Shapiro, R., & St. Clair, R.L. (1980). Legal guardianship in drug refusal: An illusory solution. American Journal of Psychiatry, 137, 347–352.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves, W.A., Shumway, M., Knutsen, E.J., Weinstein, A., & Senter, N. (1987). Effects of the Jamison-Farabee consent decree: Due process protection for involuntary psychiatric patients treated with psychoactive medication. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 188–192.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Hoge, S.K., Gutheil, T.G., & Kaplan, E. (1987). The right to refuse treatment under Rogers v. Commissioner: Preliminary empirical findings and comparisons. Bulletin of the American Academy of Psychiatry & Law, 15, 163–169.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • International League of Societies for the Mentally Handicapped. ( 1968, October). Declaration of General and Special Rights of the Mentally Retarded. Brussels, Belgium: ILSMH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kirby, M. (1983). On talking about ethics. Australian Paediatric Journal, 19, 208–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • McNamara, P. (1980). Psychopharmacotherapy in South Australia. Adelaide Law Review, 7, 323–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • Onek, Klein, & Farr Law Firm. (1985). Selected legal problems in the practice of psychiatry. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peay, J. (1986). The Mental Health Act 1983 (England and Wales): Legal safeguards in limbo. Law, Medicine A Health Care 14, 180–189.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, R. (1977). Limiting the therapeutic orgy: Mental patients’ right to refuse treatment. Northwestern University Law Review, 72, 461–525.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Plotkin, R., & Gill, K.R. (1979). Invisible manacles: Drugging mentally retarded people. Stanford Law Review, 31, 637–678.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • President’s Commission for the Study of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research. (1982). Making health care decisions: A report on the ethical and legal implications of informed consent in the patient-practitioner relationship. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rapoport, D, & Parry, J. (Eds.). (1986). The right to refuse antipsychotic medication: A monograph including the perspectives of legal and clinical specialists based on papers presented at an ABA Presidential Showcase panel program. Washington, DC: American Bar Association’s Commission on the Mentally Disabled.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodenhauser, P., Schwenkner, C.E., & Khamis, H.J. (1987). Factors related to drug treatment refusal in a forensic hospital. Hospital & Community Psychiatry, 38, 631–637.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Rosen, M., Floor L., & Zisfein, L. (1974). Investigating the phenomenon of acquiescence in the mentally handicapped. British Journal of Mental Subnormality, 20, 56–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schatzberg, A.F., & Cole, J.O. (1986). Manual of clinical psychopharmacology. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S.J. (1986). Equal protection in medication decisions: Informed consent, not just the right to refuse. In D. Rapoport & J. Parry (Eds.), The right to refuse antipsychotic medication (pp. 74–79 ). Washington, DC: American Bar Association’s Commission on the Mentally Disabled.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sigelman C., Budd, E.C., Spanhel, C.L. & Schoenrock, C.J. (1981). When in doubt, say yes: Acquiescence in interviews with mentally retarded persons. Mental Retardation, 19, 53–58.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sovner, R. (1986). Assessing the quality of a psychotropic drug regimen. In D. Rapoport & J. Parry (Eds.), The right to refuse antipsychotic medication (pp. 48–57 ). Washington, DC: American Bar Association’s Commission on the Mentally Disabled.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sprague, R.L., & Baxley, G.B. (1978). Drugs for behavior management, with comment of some legal aspects. In J. Wortis (Ed.), Mental retardation and developmental disabilities (Vol. 10, pp. 92–129 ). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A.A. (1984). Law, psychiatry, and morality: Essays and analysis. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone, A.A. (1984–85). Judges as medical decision makers: Is the cure worse than the disease? Cleveland State Law Review, 33,579–592

    Google Scholar 

  • United Cerebral Palsy Association. ( 1973, May). A Bill of Rights for the handicapped. Washington DC: UCPA Annual conference.

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1948). Resolution of the General Assembly,Dec. 10, 1948, #217, 3 GAOR (A/810).

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1972). Resolution of the General Assembly,Jan. 21, 1972, Agenda Item #12 [A/Res/2856()OXVI)].

    Google Scholar 

  • United Nations. (1975). Resolution of the General Assembly,Dec. 9. 1975 [A/ 10284/Add.1(X)X)].

    Google Scholar 

  • Veatch, R.M. (1984). Limits of guardian treatment refusal: A reasonableness standard. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 9, 427–468.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Veliz, J., & James, W.S. (1987). Medicine court: Rogers in practice. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144, 62–67.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Verdun-Jones, S.N. (1986). The dawn of a “new legalism” in Australia? The New South Wales Mental Health. Act, 1983 and related legislation. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 8, 95–118.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wexler, D.B. (1982). Seclusion and restraint: Lessons from law, psychiatry, and psychology. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 5, 285–294.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Winick, B.J. (1986). The right to refuse psychotropic medication: Current state of the law and beyond. In D. Rapoport & J. Parry (Eds.), The right to refuse anti-psychotic medication (pp. 7–31 ). Washington, DC: American Bar Association’s Commission on the Mentally Disabled.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Henry A. Beyer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Nisonger Center for Mental Retardation, The Ohio State University, 43210-1205, Columbus, Ohio, USA

    Michael G. Aman

  2. Educational Research Services Center, 60115, De Kalb, Illinois, USA

    Nirbhay N. Singh

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1988 Springer-Verlag New York Inc.

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Beyer, H.A. (1988). Litigation and Use of Psychoactive Drugs in Developmental Disabilities. In: Aman, M.G., Singh, N.N. (eds) Psychopharmacology of the Developmental Disabilities. Disorders of Human Learning, Behavior, and Communication. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8774-9_2

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4613-8774-9_2

  • Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-4613-8776-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-4613-8774-9

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation