TOGGLED
Washington v. Harper
494 U.S. 210 (1990) · 1990
The right to refuse medication survives — and can be switched off by the institution holding you, without a judge.
“Given the requirements of the prison environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate's medical interest.”
The Ruling
6–3: The Due Process Clause permits a State to medicate a mentally ill prisoner with antipsychotic drugs against his will where he is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in his medical interest. An administrative hearing inside the institution suffices; no judicial hearing is required.
The Personhood Argument Not Made
The liberty interest in refusing antipsychotic medication is recognised, then routed for decision to the body that wants to administer it. The question of whether this person may be overridden is answered by his custodian. Personhood is retained in substance and its enforcement is handed to the adverse party — which converts a right against an institution into a procedure operated by that institution.
The Execution Gap Created
The right to bodily refusal is affirmed as constitutional. Whether it operates in any given case is determined internally, by professionals employed by the facility, without a court. The protection is real; the forum for asserting it belongs to the entity it protects against.
Primary sources & research
Related cases
Part of The Personhood Prism, the companion to The Execution Gap by Thomas William Hornig. See all personhood cases →