(a) It is the intention of the General Assembly to recognize the right of a legally competent
person to determine whether or not to accept medical treatment absent an emergency
or a determination that the person is incompetent and lacks the ability to make a
decision and appreciate the consequences.
(b) The General Assembly adopts the goal of high-quality, patient-centered health care,
which the Institute of Medicine defines as “providing care that is respectful of and
responsive to individual patient preferences, needs, and values and ensuring that
patient values guide all clinical decisions.” A substitute decision-maker is sometimes
necessary to make a decision about care when a person is incompetent and lacks the
ability to make a decision and appreciate the consequences. Even when a person lacks
competence, health care that a person is opposing should be avoided whenever possible
because the distress and insult to human dignity that result from compelling a person
to participate in medical treatment against his or her will are real, regardless of
how poorly the person may understand the decision.
(c) It is the policy of the General Assembly to work toward a mental health system that
does not require coercion or the use of involuntary medication.
(d) This chapter protects the rights and values described in this section through a judicial
process to determine competence prior to an order for nonemergency involuntary medication
and by limiting the duration of an order for involuntary treatment to no more than
one year. The least restrictive order consistent with the person’s right to adequate
treatment shall be provided in all cases. (Added 1997, No. 114 (Adj. Sess.), § 1; amended 2013, No. 192 (Adj. Sess.), § 16.)
J.L. v. Miller, 817 A.2d 1 (Vt. 2002). · cites it 4ד18 V.S.A § 7629(a). However, while Act 114 provides a new and different set of procedures for the treatment of individuals facing *290 involuntary medication, it also has some substantial similarities to the J.”
In re G.G., 2017 VT 10 (Vt. 2017). · cites it 2דSee 18 V.S.A. § 7629(b) (explaining Legislature's intention to enact involuntary medication laws in accordance with principle that involuntary medication "should be avoided whenever possible because the distress and insult to human dignity that results from compelling a person…”
In re L.A., 912 A.2d 977 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 2ד18 V.S.A. § 7629(c). As long as patient can understand the consequences of refusing medication, the statute permits him to do so, even if refusing medication will be to his detriment.”
Hargrave v. Vermont, 340 F.3d 27 (2d Cir. 2003). “Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7629 (d) (“This act will render the J.”
In re L.A., 2008 VT 5 (Vt. 2008). · cites it 2דWe find unpersuasive the State’s argument that the statement of legislative intent contained in 18 V.S.A. § 7629 demonstrates that the Legislature would not have wanted an automatic stay to apply to involuntary-medication orders.”
In Re La, 2006 VT 118 (Vt. 2006). · cites it 2ד18 V.S.A. § 7629(c). As long as patient can understand the consequences of refusing medication, the statute permits him to do so, even if refusing medication will be to his detriment.”
Benoit Conversion Application - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “), § 1 (codified as 18 V.S.A. § 7629(d))) (granting relief where the Vermont Legislature adopted legislation expressly stating that “the J.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7629(a) — 1 case
J.L. v. Miller, 817 A.2d 1 (Vt. 2002). “18 V.S.A § 7629(a). However, while Act 114 provides a new and different set of procedures for the treatment of individuals facing *290 involuntary medication, it also has some substantial similarities to the J.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7629(b) — 1 case
In re G.G., 2017 VT 10 (Vt. 2017). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7629(b) (explaining Legislature's intention to enact involuntary medication laws in accordance with principle that involuntary medication "should be avoided whenever possible because the distress and insult to human dignity that results from compelling a person…”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7629(c) — 4 cases
In re L.A., 912 A.2d 977 (Vt. 2006). “18 V.S.A. § 7629(c). As long as patient can understand the consequences of refusing medication, the statute permits him to do so, even if refusing medication will be to his detriment.”
In re G.G., 2017 VT 10 (Vt. 2017). “See 18 V.S.A. § 7629(b) (explaining Legislature's intention to enact involuntary medication laws in accordance with principle that involuntary medication "should be avoided whenever possible because the distress and insult to human dignity that results from compelling a person…”
In re L.A., 2008 VT 5 (Vt. 2008). “We find unpersuasive the State’s argument that the statement of legislative intent contained in 18 V.S.A. § 7629 demonstrates that the Legislature would not have wanted an automatic stay to apply to involuntary-medication orders.”
In Re La, 2006 VT 118 (Vt. 2006). “18 V.S.A. § 7629(c). As long as patient can understand the consequences of refusing medication, the statute permits him to do so, even if refusing medication will be to his detriment.”
— Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 18, § 7629(d) — 2 cases
J.L. v. Miller, 817 A.2d 1 (Vt. 2002). “18 V.S.A § 7629(a). However, while Act 114 provides a new and different set of procedures for the treatment of individuals facing *290 involuntary medication, it also has some substantial similarities to the J.”
Benoit Conversion Application - Decision on Motion (Vt. Super. Ct. 2021). “), § 1 (codified as 18 V.S.A. § 7629(d))) (granting relief where the Vermont Legislature adopted legislation expressly stating that “the J.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.