Alaska Supreme Court rules forced drugging is unconstitutional

Health Last Updated: Oct 4th, 2006 - 02:18:56

Alaska Supreme Court rules forced drugging is unconstitutional
By Evelyn Pringle
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Oct 4, 2006, 02:17

Email this article
Printer friendly page

For all people who oppose forced psychiatric drugging a major legal victory recently occurred in the highest court in the state of Alaska. In a resounding affirmation of personal liberty, the Alaska Supreme Court issued a decision in the case of Myers v Alaska Psychiatric Institute and found Alaska's forced drugging regime to be unconstitutional.

One of the drugs that the institute tried to force on the plaintiff was Zyprexa and, from here on in, the state cannot force people to take Zyprexa, or any other psychiatric drug, without first proving it to be in the patient's best interests and that there are no less restrictive alternatives available. The ruling is specific to psychiatric drugs.

"By requiring the least intrusive alternative to forced psychiatric drugging," says Jim Gottstein, the triumphant attorney in the case, "this decision has the potential to change the face of current psychiatric practice, dramatically improving the lives of people who now find themselves at the wrong end of a hypodermic needle.“

Mr. Gottstein acknowledges that the ruling will effect drug company profits. "The issue of Big Pharma profits is a big one, of course," he says, "and the Myers decision is perhaps most relevant where it states, 'a valid debate exists in the medical/psychiatric community as to the safety and effectiveness of the .'"
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_1274.shtml
:kick: :kick: :kick:

The entire idea of forced medicating is repugnant. It may, in some cases be necessary for safetly reasons, but the medical establishment should be able to defend their decision as a necessary one. Forced medication as a matter of policy is just an evil idea.

...and that there are no less restrictive alternatives available. The ruling is specific to psychiatric drugs........."In our view," the court wrote, "before a state may administer psychotropic drugs to a non-consenting mentally ill patient in a non-emergency setting, an independent judicial best interests determination is constitutionally necessary to ensure that the proposed treatment is actually the least intrusive means of protecting the patient."

In reaching its decision, the Court noted that Alaska law recognizes and addresses a distinct class of drugs called “psychotropic medications.”



They can still do it in an emergency, per the article...and the ruling only applies in Alaska. Looks like the judge (or a panel) has the final say-so now, rather than the doctor.

What this does is put a check on the administration of drugs and shifts the authority from the doctors to the judges. It doesn't entirely eliminate the practice, despite the somewhat misleading headline. The use of the word "may" gives the court a bit of wiggle room, notwithstanding the patient's desires.