General Resources / Legal Resources / Medical Resources / Briefing Papers / State Activity    
Hospital Closures / Preventable Tragedies / Press Room / Search Our Site / Home

NAMI Policy on Involuntary Commitment and Court Ordered Treatment

Approved by NAMI Board of Directors on October 7, 1995

The National Alliance for the Mentally Ill (NAMI) believes that all people should have the right to make their own decisions about medical treatment. However, NAMI is aware that there are certain individuals with biological brain disorders (also known as severe mental illnesses) such as schizophrenia and manic-depressive illness who, at times, due to their illness, lack insight or judgment about their need for medical treatment. NAMI is also aware that, in many states, laws and policies governing involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment are inadequate.

NAMI, therefore, adopts the following policy:

1.  The availability of effective, comprehensive community-based systems of care for persons suffering from biological brain disorders will diminish the need for involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment.

2.  Methods for facilitating communications about treatment preferences between individuals with biological brain disorders, family members and treatment providers should be adopted and promoted in all states.

3.  Involuntary commitment and court ordered treatment decisions must be made expeditiously and simultaneously in a single hearing so that individuals can receive treatment in a timely manner. The role of Courts should be limited to review to ensure that procedures used in making these determinations comply with individual rights and due process requirements, and not to make medical decisions.

4.  Involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitment and court ordered treatment should be used as a last resort and only when it is believed to be in the best interests of the individual in need.

5.  States should adopt broader, more flexible standards which would provide for involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment when an individual:

(A) Is gravely disabled, which means that the person is substantially unable, except for reasons of indigence, to provide for any of his or her basic needs, such as food, clothing, shelter, health or safety, or

(B) Is likely to substantially deteriorate if not provided with timely treatment, or

(C) Lacks Capacity, which means that as a result of the brain disorder the person is unable to fully understand or lacks judgment to make an informed decision regarding his or her need for treatment, care or supervision.

6.  Current interpretations of laws which require proof of dangerousness often produce unsatisfactory outcomes because individuals are allowed to deteriorate needlessly before involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment can be instituted. When the "dangerousness standard" is used, it must be interpreted more broadly than "imminently" and/or "provably" dangerous.

7.  State laws should also allow for consideration of past history in making determinations about involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment, since past history is often a reliable way to anticipate the future course of illness.

8.  An independent administrative and/or judicial review must be guaranteed in all involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment determinations. Individuals must be afforded access to appropriate representation knowledgeable about biological brain disorders and provided opportunities to submit evidence in opposition to involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment.

9.  Responsibility for determining court ordered treatment should always be vested with medical professionals who, in conjunction with the individual, family, and other interested parties must develop a plan for treatment.

10.  The legal standard for states to meet in order to justify emergency commitments for initial 24 to 72 hours should be "information and belief." For involuntary commitments beyond the initial period the standard should be "clear and convincing evidence." Involuntary commitment and/or court ordered treatment must be periodically subject to administrative or judicial review to ascertain whether circumstances justify the continuation of these orders.

11.  Court ordered outpatient treatment should be considered as a less restrictive, more beneficial and less costly alternative to involuntary inpatient treatment.

12.  Efforts must be undertaken to better educate justice systems and law enforcement professionals about the relationship between severe biological brain disorders and the application of involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitment and court ordered treatment.

13.  Private and public health insurance plans must cover the costs of involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitment and/or court ordered treatment.

general resources | legal resources | medical resources | briefing papers | state activity   
hospital closures | preventable tragedies | press room | search | home