title: Commentary: Involuntary Antipsychotics in Prison—Extending Harper, Contracting Care?
abstract: This commentary on Salem et al. provides background for their study by reviewing Washington v. Harper and outlining some areas that were not addressed by that decision. It contrasts Harper holdings with those in other U. S. Supreme Court decisions in parallel cases and in United States v. Loughner. It provides cautions about extensions of some holdings in Loughner regarding the use of Harper-type administrative procedures. This article also reviews the methods and findings of Salem et al. and encourages further work. Finally, it raises cautions and voices a call to action concerning potential negative consequences of documenting the effectiveness of administration of involuntary medication in prison.
authors.affiliation: Dr. Levine is Clinical Assistant Professor and Dr. Gage is Clinical Associate Professor, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Dr. Gage is also Chief of Psychiatry, Washington Department of Corrections, Tumwater, WA. HLevineMD@aol.com.
authors.forename: Henry S
authors.initials: HS
authors.lastname: Levine
authors.affiliation: Dr. Levine is Clinical Assistant Professor and Dr. Gage is Clinical Associate Professor, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Dr. Gage is also Chief of Psychiatry, Washington Department of Corrections, Tumwater, WA.
authors.forename: Bruce C
authors.initials: BC
authors.lastname: Gage
mesh_terms: D014150:Antipsychotic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use*; D002961:Civil Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000188:drug therapy*; D011329:Prisoners / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D016312:Treatment Refusal / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*
chemical_list: D014150:Antipsychotic Agents