Riggins v. Nevada: The accused's right to "just say no" to antipsychotic drugs?

The right to "just say no": a history and analysis of the right to refuse antipsychotic drugs.

Sell v. United States: the appropriate standard for involuntarily administering antipsychotic drugs to dangerous detainees for trial.

INTRODUCTION In Sell v. United States, the United States Supreme Court held that the Constitution allows the government to administer antipsychotic drugs involuntarily to a mentally ill criminal detainee in order to render that defendant competent to stand trial for serious, but nonviolent crimes. Drawing closely from the standards articulated in the earlier cases of Washington v. Harper and Ri...

New directions in the right to refuse mental health treatment: the implications of Riggins v. Nevada.

Involuntary medication of patients who are incompetent to stand trial: a descriptive study of the New York experience with judicial review.

The United States Supreme Court, in the recent case of Riggins v. Nevada, extended its examination of the issue of involuntary treatment with antipsychotic medication to the mentally disabled facing criminal trial. A criminal defendant who is "incompetent to stand trial" cannot be subjected to trial. Many such persons are committed to hospitals to be treated and rendered "competent to stand tri...

Just Say No to the TPP: A Democratic Setback for American and Asian Public Health; Comment on “The Trans-Pacific Partnership: Is It Everything We Feared for Health?”

The article by Labonté, Schram, and Ruckert is a significant and timely analysis of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) policy and the severe threats to public health that it implies for 12 Pacific Rim populations from the Americas and Asia (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, United States, and Vietnam). With careful and analytic precision t...