Colorado § 27-65-105 - Rights of respondents.

§ 27-65-105. Rights of respondents.

Unless specifically stated in an order by the court, a respondent does not forfeit any legal right or suffer legal disability by reason of the provisions of this article 65.

Source: L. 2022: Entire article amended with relocations, (HB 22-1256), ch. 451, p. 3179, § 1, effective August 10; (6) repealed, (HB 22-1256), ch. 451, p. 3240, § 56, effective August 10.

Editor's note: (1) The provisions of this section are similar to § 27-65-104 as it existed prior to 2022.

(2) Subsection (6) was repealed in § 56 of HB 22-1256, effective August 10, 2022. However, those repeals were superseded by the amendment of this entire article by § 1 of HB 22-1256, effective August 10, 2022.

ANNOTATION

Law reviews. For article, "Legal Capacity of Adjudged Incompetents", see 29 Dicta 292 (1952). For article, "Legal But Not Fair: Legal Implications of a Mental Illness Medical Model", see 11 Colo. Law. 1234 (1982).

Annotator's note. Since § 27-65-105 is similar to § 27-65-104 as it existed prior to the 2022 amendments to this article and to laws antecedent to that section, relevant cases construing those provisions have been included in the annotations to this section.

Patient's common-law right to decline medical treatment is among those protected by this section and is preserved intact in the absence of some finding that the patient's illness has so impaired his judgment that he is incapable of participating in decisions affecting his health. Goedecke v. State Dept. of Insts., 198 Colo. 407, 603 P.2d 123 (1979).

Right of incompetent to decline treatment. The right to decline medical treatment is not lost to a patient who is mentally incapable of deciding that question for himself. People in Interest of Medina, 662 P.2d 184 (Colo. App. 1982), aff'd, 705 P.2d 961 (Colo. 1985).

When nonconsensual treatment may be ordered. Treatment with antipsychotic medication should not be ordered unless: (1) The patient is incompetent to effectively participate in the treatment decision; (2) such treatment is necessary to prevent long-term deterioration in the patient's mental condition; (3) a less intrusive treatment is not available; and (4) the patient's need for such treatment overrides any legitimate interest of the patient in refusing treatment. In any event, and the order for involuntary medication cannot exceed six months without further extension. People v. Medina, 705 P.2d 961 (Colo. 1985).

A court may authorize the administration of a backup medication only when the petitioner presents clear and convincing evidence, and the court finds a specific articulable concern, that the involuntary administration of the primary medication will be ineffective if the patient experiences a recurrence of a condition or symptoms that previously required administration of the backup medication. People in Interest of D.N.W., 2024 COA 129, 564 P.3d 1126.

Medina test for forcibly administering medication applies equally to a forcible increase in medication dosage. The second Medina element requires a patient to be deteriorating, which does not mean the same thing as "not improving". A patient who is simply not improving will not satisfy the Medina test for forcible administration of medication. People v. Marquardt, 2016 CO 4, 364 P.3d 499.

The fourth factor dictated in Medina was met when the court reduced dosage of antipsychotic medication to minimize side effects suffered by plaintiff. Clear and convincing evidence existed that the need for the drug, as ordered to be administered by the trial court, outweighed all legitimate interests the petitioner had in refusing such treatment. Donaldson v. District Court for the City and County of Denver, 847 P.2d 632 (Colo. 1993).

For capacity of incompetent to contract and to execute deeds, see Rohrer v. Darrow, 66 Colo. 463, 182 P. 13 (1919); Davis v. Colo. Kenworth Corp., 156 Colo. 98, 396 P.2d 958 (1964).

Applied in People in Interest of Freeman, 636 P.2d 1334 (Colo. App. 1981).