The primary holding in O’Connor vs. Donaldson (1975) was that the state has no right to commit an individual to a facility against their will unless such an individual poses a danger to self or others and is incapable of living without state supervision. In this case, however, Donaldson was forcefully confined even though he posed no justifiable danger to himself or others. While the hospital superintendent (defendant) maintained that his reason for authorizing confinement was in the best interest of the plaintiff (Donaldson), no treatment was accorded during the period of confinement, and neither could he (the defendant) recall why he ruled out that Donaldson would not make successful adjustment outside the institution. O’Connor also admitted to having no first-hand witness or knowledge of Donaldson’s behavior that could be deemed harmful throughout his confinement period. This confinement was, therefore, not only unnecessary but also a deliberate denial of the Right to Treatment. O’Connor also consistently rejected any offers made by third parties willing to support Donaldson upon his release, such as Helping Hands and a family friend who appealed to have him released on four separate occasions. Therefore, Donaldson’s constitutional right to liberty was violated. It is intriguing how firmly one should believe that their actions are in the best interests of another party when they consistently infringe their constitutional rights without basis for their belief.
Should the state be able to confine you without due process?
The state should not confine an individual without due process. As such, the grounds for confinement must be clear (that is, an individual who is incapacitated and poses a danger to self and others, and where custodial care must accompany treatment). The constitution requires the provision of minimally adequate treatment. As expressed by the court, a person confined against his will at a state mental institution has a constitutional right to receive individual treatment, regardless of the grounds for involuntary civil commitment. While the court’s opinion implied that it is constitutionally permissible for a state to confine a mentally ill person and administer treatment, whether or not they pose a danger of harm to self or others, the presence of a mental illness alone cannot justify indefinite involuntary confinement in simple custodial confinement. In a nutshell, the state cannot confine a non-dangerous individual capable of living freely and safely by himself or with the support of responsible kin.
How do you view these rights concerning public health concerns such as the opioid epidemic, mass shootings, or the recent global pandemic?
Lack of clear understanding of psychosis and related mental illnesses has had a hand in the way individuals diagnosed with such conditions are viewed, handled, and treated over the years, with the broken system to blame for long-term institutionalization, human rights abuses, and forced segregation. Following the increase in mass shootings and gun violence in recent years, persons with psychosis have been erroneously linked to violence, with increasing beliefs that individuals with schizophrenia are dangerous and social misfits (Britz & Jones, 2023). In light of these misconceptions, constitutional rights must be upheld for all. The amendment that bars the state from confining mentally ill individuals who are harmless and capable of living safely alone or in the company of others grants support to such individuals and protects them from misconstrued judgment by the general public as “atomic” or “volatile” people. The constitutional rights of such persons are protected as they are at lesser risk of unjust forceful confinement.
References
Britz, B., & Jones, N. (2023). Experiencing and treating ‘madness’ in the United States circa 1967–2022: Critical counter-histories. SSM-Mental Health, 100228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmmh.2023.100228
O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975), https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/422/563/
write