According to the State Bar of Texas, involuntary commitment is “…the use of legal means to commit a person to a mental hospital or psychiatric ward against their will or over their protests” (“Committed to Healing: Involuntary Commitment Procedures”). Involuntary commitment blatantly disregards the principles of bodily integrity and basic civil liberties upon which the United States was founded. Additionally, the medication typically forced upon involuntarily committed patients seldom successfully improves their mental state. The U.S. Supreme Court should declare involuntary commitment of the mentally ill unconstitutional because it violates the civil rights of mentally ill persons and coercive medication rarely succeeds in effectively treating …show more content…
In fact, “…the U.S. Supreme Court has yet to consider the constitutional questions presented by outpatient commitment…” (Player 187). Since the founding of the United States, power over one’s own body has been a fundamental right. Recently established involuntary commitment laws, which disregard the principle of bodily integrity, have been enacted in 45 U.S. states. The Supreme Court must declare these unethical Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) laws unconstitutional, and illegalize them for their blatant violation of the Constitutional right to one’s own body. Under AOT's, a judge can legally determine if a mentally ill person displays “dangerous behavior toward self or others, grave disability, and the need for treatment” that would indicate an immediate need for treatment, despite the will of the disabled person (Menninger). After these qualifications have been met, the judge can issue orders for a mentally disabled person to undergo psychiatric treatment. Despite a seemingly straightforward …show more content…
Of the forty-five states currently holding AOT’s, most consider that previous violent acts or suicide attempts qualify someone as dangerous to themselves or others (Stettin).The idea of containing someone dangerous to themselves or society seems, at first glance, sensible. However, the actual constitutionality of these laws remains uncertain. In fact, many have called into question the legal grounds that permit the enactment of AOT’s. Some even believe that “...outpatient commitment statutes such as ‘Kendra’s Law’ in New York may violate long-established constitutional protections against forced treatment” (Allen and Smith 345). Kendra’s Law, one of the most well-known AOT’s, was created in response to the attack on Kendra Webdale by an untreated mentally ill person, which ultimately led to her death. Her family pushed for legal action, and in response, New York State enacted Kendra’s Law to keep mentally ill people off the streets. Despite the positive intentions behind the law, the emotional backstory it holds does not put it above the Constitution. Although many people have called into question the legality of outpatient involuntary commitment, the