Connecticut Senate Bill SB00452

Connecticut 2012 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/16/12
• Refer: 3/16/12

Caption

An Act Concerning The Care And Treatment Of Persons With Psychiatric Disabilities.

Impact

The implications of this bill on state law are substantial, especially concerning the legal authority of conservators in the context of psychiatric care. By allowing conservators to consent to the administration of medication for discharged patients who refuse treatment, the bill seeks to ensure that individuals who may pose a danger to themselves or others receive necessary care. This legislative move reinforces the commitment of the state to prioritizing mental health by providing necessary interventions, while also balancing issues of individual rights and the ethical considerations surrounding consent.

Summary

SB00452, titled 'An Act Concerning The Care And Treatment Of Persons With Psychiatric Disabilities', aims to enhance the standards and practices surrounding the treatment of individuals diagnosed with psychiatric disabilities. The bill outlines the processes involved in the treatment and care of these individuals, specifically focusing on the administration of medication post-discharge from healthcare facilities. It establishes significant provisions that allow conservators to consent to medication administration for patients who are deemed capable of making informed consent but refuse to do so, ensuring that necessary psychiatric care is not interrupted due to a patient's refusal to accept medication.

Contention

However, the bill does raise notable points of contention. Critics might argue that allowing medication to be administered against a patient's will challenges the principles of informed consent and personal autonomy. The discussions regarding the applicability of conservator authority in making these medical decisions often spark debates about the extent of governmental and institutional power over individual rights, particularly in the context of mental health treatment. Furthermore, the necessity for clear criteria determining when a person is considered a 'direct threat of harm' could also lead to disagreements on ethical and practical grounds, particularly in how these assessments are made.