| http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nrsell2.htm For release May 15, 2002: DOCTORS AND ACLU LOSE FORCED DRUGGING APPEAL Washington -- The Eight Circuit Court of Appeals has refused a petition supported by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons and the ALCU for a rehearing to overturn the forced drugging of Charles Sell, a St. Louis dentist charged with billing fraud. Last weeks' 5 to 4 oral decision comes after a March 2002 ruling that found that a defendant can be forcibly drugged even though he has not been convicted of any charges, nor has been found to be a danger to himself or others. "The Court's ruling is in obvious conflict to Supreme Court rulings, " said AAPS Attorney, Andrew Schlafly. "The stunning breadth of the decision leaves few, if any, defendants free from the threat of being medicated against their will." The majority opinion issued in March acknowledging that "the evidence does not support a finding that Sell posed a danger to himself or others" but still found that "charges of fraud" alone are "serious" enough to justify forced medication. Further, the Court held that there are no limits on the quantity or type of drugs. Dr. Sell, charged with Medicaid fraud, has been imprisoned for more than 4 years, including one- and-one-half years in solitary confinement. He has never been brought to trial. In the Motion for Rehearing, AAPS argued: "The Decision holds that merely by alleging fraud, the State may inject mind-altering drugs into a prisoner against his will, based on government testimony. The panel majority even rejected any limits on the type or quantity of the drugs injected, and implicitly allowed drugs that have not been fully tested and approved for the specific purpose. "Because the Decision is at odds with Supreme Court holdings, adherence to Rule of Law requires a rehearing en banc." Court documents filed by the ACLU echo those arguments: "The Panel's holding that an intermediate level of scrutiny is required for the government to administer involuntarily antipsychotic medication for the sole purpose of rendering a non-dangerous pretrial detainee competent to stand trial conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals that strict scrutiny is required to satisfy a non- dangerous pretrial detainee's due process rights. "The Panel's opinion fails to determine if the government's interest is compelling before applying its balancing test, and fails to acknowledge the fundamental liberty status that the Supreme Court has granted to non-dangerous people to be free from involuntary medication by the government." Mr. Schlafly says that AAPS will continue efforts to overturn the decision. |
