Section 4. Habilitation of the Developmentally Disabled Generally, 37-4-1 through 37-4-127.
ARTICLE 5
RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED PERSONS UNDERGOING HABILITATION, THEIR REPRESENTATIVES, ETC., GENERALLY
37-4-123. Recognition of clients' physical integrity; rights to refuse medication; obtaining consent to treatment and surgery; performance of emergency surgery, immunity of physician; direction of notice of actions taken under Code section.
-
It shall be the policy of this state to recognize the personal physical integrity of all clients.
-
It shall be the policy of this state to protect reasonably the right of every individual to refuse medication, except in cases where a physician determines that refusal would be unsafe to the client or others. If the client continues to refuse medication after such initial emergency treatment, a concurring opinion from a second physician must be obtained before medication can be continued without the client's consent. Further, in connection with any hearing under this chapter, the client has the right to appear and testify as free from any side effects or adverse effects of the medication as is reasonably possible.
-
Any client objecting to the treatment being administered to him shall have a right to request a protective order pursuant to Code Section 37-4-108.
-
Except as provided in subsections (b) and (e) of this Code section, consent to medical treatment and surgery shall be obtained and regulated by Chapter 9 of Title 31.
-
In cases of grave emergency where the medical staff of the facility in which a developmentally disabled person has been accepted for habilitation determines that immediate surgical or other intervention is necessary to prevent serious physical consequences or death and where delay in obtaining consent would create a grave danger to the physical health of such person, as determined by at least two physicians, then essential surgery or other intervention may be administered without the consent of the person, the spouse, next of kin, attorney, guardian, or any other person. In such cases, a record of the determination of the physicians shall be entered into the medical records of the client and this will be proper consent for such surgery or other intervention. Such consent will be valid, notwithstanding the type of admission of the client, and it shall also be valid whether or not the client has been adjudged incompetent. This Code section is intended to have application to those individuals who, as a result of their advanced age, impaired thinking, or other disability, cannot reasonably understand the consequences of withholding consent to surgery or other intervention as contemplated by this Code section. Any physician, agent, employee, or official who obtains consent or relies on such consent as authorized by this Code section and who acts in good faith and within the provisions of this chapter shall be immune from civil or criminal liability for his actions in connection with said obtaining or relying upon such consent. Actual notice of any action taken pursuant to this Code section shall be given to the client and the spouse, next of kin, attorney, guardian, or representative of the client as soon as practically possible.
(Code 1933, § 88-2516, enacted by Ga. L. 1977, p. 886, § 1; Code 1933, § 88-2503.6, enacted by Ga. L. 1978, p. 1826, § 1; Ga. L. 1995, p. 1302, § 13; Ga. L. 2009, p. 453, § 3-5/HB 228.)
JUDICIAL DECISIONS
Involuntary administration of drugs by state does not violate due process.
- State's policy and procedure for the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs to patients at the state mental hospital does not violate substantive or procedural due process. Hightower by Dehler v. Olmstead, 959 F. Supp. 1549 (N.D. Ga. 1996).
RESEARCH REFERENCES
ALR.
- Nonconsensual treatment of involuntarily committed mentally ill persons with neuroleptic or antipsychotic drugs as violative of state constitutional guaranty, 74 A.L.R.4th 1099.