LAUSR

There has been an ongoing debate regarding the forced use of antipsychotic medications and both the psychiatric and legal professions have reacted strongly to the growing debate. Within the penological context, cases such as Washington v. Harper, Riggins v. Nevada, and Sell v. United States established the framework for determining when antipsychotic medication may be forcibly administered. Medication decisions under the Sell and Riggins cases are to be approved at judicial hearings; whereas, administrative hearings are sufficient for Harper cases. Forensic psychiatrists are also given responsibility in making the legal decision of whether or not to forcibly treat a patient with psychotropic medication against his will. In making this critical decision, a significant factor that is often minimized is the cultural background of the patient. The purpose of this paper is to present cultural factors to be considered in forced medication. Focusing on the culture defense argument, a review of how the legal system has dealt with cultural implications of a case will be presented. This paper will then discuss cultural issues embedded in the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of psychiatric patients by forensic psychiatrists who are called upon to make the decision of whether or not to force medicate a patient against his will. Lastly, recommendations and a framework for providing a culturally sensitive assessment during the decision to forcibly medicate a patient with psychotropic medication will be offered.