Substituted judgement and the right to refuse shock treatment in Washington: In re Schuoler.

One of the most significant developments in modern constitutional thought revolves around judicial protection of fundamental privacy and liberty interests.' These interests are derived from the first, eighth, and fourteenth amendments, the "penumbra" of privacy rights found generally in the Bill of Rights,2 and the common law doctrine of informed consent.' Courts have held these interests to be of such paramount concern to individual freedom that states may not derogate these interests unless a compelling state interest is at stake. The judiciary's function is to balance the individual's liberty interest against the state's interest in regulating or protecting persons and to focus on the nexus between those two interests. This Note will consider the process of protecting an individual's constitutional right to refuse intrusive psychiatric treatment-specifically, an involuntarily committed mental