Offender's Right to Refuse Treatment 231OFFENDER'S RIGHT TO REFUSE TREATMENT
Introduction
The basic rights provided to citizens under most of the constitutional amendments
have been extended to the inmates in our prisons. The source of the right to refuse
treatment can be traced to case law beginning in the mid-1970s. In the mid-1970s,
U.S. civil rights advocates, after successfully arguing for the rights of minorities,
turned their attention to psychiatric patients. They argued for a greater recognition
of the general rights of involuntary patients and for the specific right of these patients
to refuse treatment. Since a voluntary patient cannot be treated against his or her
will unless found incompetent to make treatment decisions, they reasoned that an
involuntary patient should have a similar right. Since the late 1970s, an increasing
number of state courts have recognized this common law principle as the doctrine
of "informed consent." The state courts have not been receptive to countering
arguments, namely, economic considerations about lowering treatment costs and
the need of mentally ill patients to be treated. Involuntary competent patients are
allowed the right to refuse treatment because state courts are creating laws that
provide them with a review board or court to make treatment decisions in then-
best interest.
An offender's right to refuse treatment raises significant questions in terms of
constitutional law (Arrigo & Tasca, 1999). When treatment is focused at changing
the mind of the offender, the right to refuse treatment is based on the First Amend-
ment right to free speech. The cruel and unusual punishment associated with ex-
perimental drugs and unstable treatment programs used on inmates has generated
the controversial issue of the Right to Refuse Treatment doctrine. Inmates suiter
from severe psychological problems when involuntarily given experimental drugs.
The Washington v. Harper (1990) case exemplifies this controversial issue.ID the case Washington v. Harper (1990), a prisoner's right to refuse treatment was in
question. The Supreme Court decision considered the right of inmate Harper to refuse
antipsychotic medication. The Department of Corrections for the state of Washington
maintained a Special Offender Center to diagnose and treat convicted felons who were
state prisoners and had serious mental disorders. Under the Washington Special Offender
Center's policy, it a prisoner does not agree to treatment with antipsychotic drugs ordered
by a psychiatrist, the prisoner is entitled to a hearing before a committee consisting of a
psychiatrist, a psychologist, and another prison official, none of whom can be, at the time
of the hearing, involved in the prisoner's treatment. Also, the prisoner can be subjected to
involuntary treatment with the drugs only if the committee determines that the prisoner
suffers from a mental disorder and is gravely disabled or poses serious harm to him- or
herself, others, or their property.
Walter Harper had consistently taken antipsychotic medication for 6 years to curb
his aggression and to silence voices he was hearing. In 1982, he refused his medica-
tion because of it s side-effects. In 1988, the Washington Supreme Court agreed with
inmate Harper ruling that antipsychotic drugs could only be given to an involuntary