NCJ Number
107907
Journal
Law and Psychology Review Volume: 10 Dated: (Spring 1986) Pages: 129-146
Date Published
1986
Length
18 pages
Annotation
Both ethical and practical considerations point to the desirability of implementing procedures to ensure inmates' informed consent to treatment, even though court decisions show that prisoners often do not have the right to refuse treatment.
Abstract
Discussions of the inmate's right to treatment and the inmate's right to refuse treatment are linked with discussions of whether the goal of corrections is to rehabilitate or to punish offenders. The rehabilitative goal suggests the right to treatment, whereas the punitive goal suggests the inmate's right to refuse treatment that is rehabilitative. A review of case law shows that courts are more likely to recognize the inmate's autonomy and uphold procedures for obtaining informed consent in cases where the treatment is serious and intrusive in its impact on the individual. In cases where the treatment is unlikely to be damaging, the consent of the inmate has been perceived to be unnecessary. In these cases, society's right to make coercive demands on behavior has been upheld over the individual's decision not to consent. However, prisoners generally do not have a right to treatment. Despite the difficulties of providing consent to programs in a coercive environment like a prison, research should continue to focus on finding the best way to accomplish such a goal. 85 footnotes.