Cited by

In the 2 (holding that involuntary administration of neuroleptic drugs requires judicial approval).

which requires a district court to find that an intrusive treatment is both necessary and reasonable before it can be administered to a civilly committed patient, adequately addresses whether the intrusive treatment is a “treatment necessary to preserve the life or health of any committed patient” un

But the 3 See Jarvis v. Levine , (holding that “medical authorities seeking to treat [a patient] involuntarily with neuroleptic drugs must obtain pre- treatment judicial review”).

When appellant was provisionally discharged, he made repeated calls to the police, saying that his ex-girlfriend 1 (requiring judicial approval for involuntary treatment with neuroleptic drugs).

He testified that Fale’s mental illness and trouble with law enforcement 1 in which the Minnesota Supreme Court held that health-care professionals must obtain court approval before treating a patient with neuroleptic medications without the patient’s consent.

See, (noting that Price “enunciated the criteria to be utilized by the probate courts in determining the necessity and reasonableness of the proposed treatment”).

2 See Jarvis v. Levine , (holding that health-care professionals must obtain court approval before involuntarily treating a patient with neuroleptic medications).

Minn. Stat. § 253B.092, subd.

In determining capacity, the district court must consider: 4 -49 (Minn. 1988), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication must be preauthorized by a court order.

The court also determined 1 The terms “neuroleptic” and “psychotropic” “are used interchangeably to describe a class of drugs that result in sedation of the nervous system.” n.2 (Minn. App. 2020) ( n.1 (Minn. 1988)).

6a (198 8) (replaced by Minn. Stat. § 253B.092)); -49 (Minn. 1988).

See Price v. Sheppard , (holding that hospitals must obtain a court order before administering intrusive forms of treatment against patients who are incompe tent or refuse consent); see also Jarvis v. Levine , (holding that the administration of neuroleptic medication is an intrusive treatment, so hospitals must follow the procedures from Price when administering it against incompetent patients who refuse consent).

decisions [in the treatment context.]' " Jarvis v. Levine , , 147 (Minn. 1988) (quoting Youngberg v. Romeo , 457 U.S. 307 , 323, 102 S.Ct.

hospitalized, appella nt often refused to take psychotropic medications, refuse d meals and showers, and neglec ted to care for his 1 The terms ‘neuroleptic,’ ‘major tranquilizer,’ ‘psychotropic,’ and ‘antipsychotic’ are used interchangeably to describe a major class of drugs that effectuate a “sedation of the nervous system.” n.1 (Minn. 1988).

1 “ N e u r o l e p t i c s ” a r e a c l a s s o f m e d i c a t i o n s t h a t e f f e c t u a t e a “ sedation of the nervous system.” n.1 (Minn. 1988).

the 1 -49 (Minn. 1988), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that forced administration of neuroleptic medication must be preauthorized by a court order.

1 8 (Minn. 1988), the Minnesota Supreme Court held that forced administration of neuroleptic medication must be preauthorized by a court order.

and also involves a mood component.” He added that “There is no effective treatment for psychotic symptoms other than neuroleptic medications.” When asked for appellant’s symptoms, he said: 1 -49 (Minn. 1988) (providing that medical authorities seeking to treat a patient involuntarily with neuroleptic medications must first obtain court approval).

2 DECISION I. We will affirm a district court’s findings of fact in an order compelling the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medications unless there is

6(d) (2012); n.7 9 (Minn. 1988).

Raboin argues that the district court’s order authorizing the involuntary administration of neuroleptic medication violates his rights under Price v. Sheppard, 307 Minn. 250 , because (1) the order is unclear regarding the authorized duration of the neuroleptic-medication treatment; (2) the order does not limit the dosage authorized for Raboin’s treatment; and (3) the order allows Raboin to be treated “with any neu-roleptic medication.” In Price v. Sheppard, the Minnesota Supre

9 .Gomez, (woman’s right to choose to have an abortion); (forcible administration of neuroleptic drugs without prior judicial approval violated right to privacy under state constitution); (sodomous acts within sex-for-compensation relationship not afforded constitutional protection under state constitution).