Legal Memorandum: Involuntary Commitment for Treatment

Issue: Is a Wisconsin statute allowing for involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication to a prisoner unconstitutional as applied to the prisoner?

With respect to the application of the statute to a Wisconsin prisoner, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals also approved of Illinois Administrative Code 20 § 415.70 (2000) TA l "Illinois Administrative Code 20 § 415.70 (2000)" s "Illinois Administrative Code 20 § 415.70 (2000)" c 2 , a policy nearly identical to the policy in Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178 (1990). TA s "Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1036-1037, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 198 (1990)"   Fuller v. Dillon, 236 F.3d 876, 881 (7^th Cir. 2001).  The Seventh Circuit held:

Harper emphasized several aspects of an inmate’s right to refuse drug treatment. First, to administer involuntary treatment the state must find that medication is in the prisoner’s medical interest (independent of institutional concerns). 494 U.S. at 227, 110 S. Ct. at 1039 TA s "Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 221-222, 110 S. Ct. 1028, 1036-1037, 108 L. Ed. 2d 178, 198 (1990)" . Second, the tribunal or panel that reviews a treating physician’s decision to prescribe forced medication must exercise impartial and independent judgment, taking account of the inmate’s best interest. Id. at 222, 233, 110 S. Ct. at 1036, 1042; compare id. at 250-53, 110 S. Ct. at 1051-53 (Stevens, J., dissenting). Third, the prisoner must be able to argue capably before a review tribunal that he does not need forced medication. Id. at 233, […]