Patient’s Rights: Statutory Provisions:

K.R.S. 202A.191 Rights of Hospitalized Patients

(1) Each and every patient hospitalized under this chapter shall have the following rights:

(a) The right to be adequately informed as to their individual treatment program;

(b) The right to assist in the planning of their treatment program;

(c) The right to refuse treatment subject to the provisions of K.R.S. 202A.196;

(d) The right to keep, maintain and use personal possessions and money;

(e) The right to receive visitors;

(f) The right to receive payment for work performed on behalf of the hospital;

(g) The right to refuse intrusive treatment subject to the provisions of K.R.S. 202A.196;

(h) The right to be free from unreasonable use of seclusion and restraint;

(i) The right to seek relief from participating in their treatment plan.

*Note: K.R.S. 202A.196 contains the “de novo” provisions.

K.R.S. 202A.991 Penalties

(1) Any person who willfully causes or conspires with or assists another in causing:

(a) The unwarranted hospitalization of any individual under the provisions of this chapter; or

(b) The denial of any individual of any of the rights accorded to him under this provisions of this chapter; shall be guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

(2) Any person who violates the confidentiality of any mental health record under the provisions of this chapter shall be guilty of a Class B misdemeanor.

42 U.S.C. 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights)

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of any state or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the depravation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purpose of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.

Patient’s Rights: Landmark Cases:

Canterbury v. Spence: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1972: “Materiality of the information” standard in informed consent.

Cruzan v. Director: U.S. Supreme Court, 1990: “Competent person has the right to refuse treatment”. “Cleat and convincing evidence required in order to force treatment on an incompetent person”. This is the minimum standard. Kentucky requires “beyond a reasonable doubt”. This case led the U.S. Congress to pass laws about advance directives.

Rogers v. Commissioner: Massachusetts Supreme Court, 1982. “Involuntarily committed mental patients do retain a liberty interest “.

Kantowitz v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health: Circuit Court of Wayne County, Michigan, 1973: “Staff cannot obtain informed consent from an involuntary patient for experimental treatment”.

Lake v. Cameron: D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, 1966: “Least restrictive alternative requirement”.

Zinermon v. Burch: U.S. Supreme Court, 1990: “Competence required to sign into a hospital as a voluntary patient”.