Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.215
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
(1) A person found to be gravely disabled or to present a likelihood of serious harm as a result of a behavioral health disorder has a right to refuse antipsychotic medication unless it is determined that the failure to medicate may result in a likelihood of serious harm or substantial deterioration or substantially prolong the length of involuntary commitment and there is no less intrusive course of treatment than medication in the best interest of that person.
(2) The authority shall adopt rules to carry out the purposes of this chapter. These rules shall include:
(a) An attempt to obtain the informed consent of the person prior to administration of antipsychotic medication.
(b) For short-term treatment up to thirty days, the right to refuse antipsychotic medications unless there is an additional concurring medical opinion approving medication by a psychiatrist, physician assistant working with a psychiatrist who is acting as a participating physician as defined in RCW 18.71A.010, psychiatric advanced registered nurse practitioner, or physician or physician assistant in consultation with a mental health professional with prescriptive authority.
(c) For continued treatment beyond thirty days through the hearing on any petition filed under RCW 71.05.217, the right to periodic review of the decision to medicate by the medical director or designee.
(d) Administration of antipsychotic medication in an emergency and review of this decision within twenty-four hours. An emergency exists if the person presents an imminent likelihood of serious harm, and medically acceptable alternatives to administration of antipsychotic medications are not available or are unlikely to be successful; and in the opinion of the physician, physician assistant, or psychiatric advanced registered nurse practitioner, the person's condition constitutes an emergency requiring the treatment be instituted prior to obtaining a second medical opinion.
(e) Documentation in the medical record of the attempt by the physician, physician assistant, or psychiatric advanced registered nurse practitioner to obtain informed consent and the reasons why antipsychotic medication is being administered over the person's objection or lack of consent.
[ 2024 c 62 s 20; 2020 c 302 s 30; 2018 c 201 s 3008. Prior: 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 228; 2016 c 155 s 3; 2008 c 156 s 2; 1997 c 112 s 16; 1991 c 105 s 1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2024 c 62 ss 1-8, 10-18, 20-26, 28, and 30-32: See note following RCW 18.71A.010.
Intent—2024 c 62: See note following RCW 18.71A.020.
Findings—Intent—Effective date—2018 c 201: See notes following RCW 41.05.018.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Severability—1991 c 105: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1991 c 105 s 6.]
(1) A person found to be gravely disabled or to present a likelihood of serious harm as a result of a behavioral health disorder has a right to refuse antipsychotic medication unless it is determined that the failure to medicate may result in a likelihood of serious harm or substantial deterioration or substantially prolong the length of involuntary commitment and there is no less intrusive course of treatment than medication in the best interest of that person.
(2) The authority shall adopt rules to carry out the purposes of this chapter. These rules shall include:
(a) An attempt to obtain the informed consent of the person prior to administration of antipsychotic medication.
(b) For short-term treatment up to thirty days, the right to refuse antipsychotic medications unless there is an additional concurring medical opinion approving medication by a psychiatrist, physician assistant working with a psychiatrist who is acting as a participating physician as defined in RCW 18.71A.010, psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse, or physician or physician assistant in consultation with a mental health professional with prescriptive authority.
(c) For continued treatment beyond thirty days through the hearing on any petition filed under RCW 71.05.217, the right to periodic review of the decision to medicate by the medical director or designee.
(d) Administration of antipsychotic medication in an emergency and review of this decision within twenty-four hours. An emergency exists if the person presents an imminent likelihood of serious harm, and medically acceptable alternatives to administration of antipsychotic medications are not available or are unlikely to be successful; and in the opinion of the physician, physician assistant, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse, the person's condition constitutes an emergency requiring the treatment be instituted prior to obtaining a second medical opinion.
(e) Documentation in the medical record of the attempt by the physician, physician assistant, or psychiatric advanced practice registered nurse to obtain informed consent and the reasons why antipsychotic medication is being administered over the person's objection or lack of consent.
[ 2025 c 58 s 5148; 2024 c 62 s 20; 2020 c 302 s 30; 2018 c 201 s 3008. Prior: 2016 sp.s. c 29 s 228; 2016 c 155 s 3; 2008 c 156 s 2; 1997 c 112 s 16; 1991 c 105 s 1.]
Notes:
Effective date—2025 c 58 ss 5058-5170: See note following RCW 7.68.030.
Explanatory note—2025 c 58: See note following RCW 1.16.050.
Effective date—2024 c 62 ss 1-8, 10-18, 20-26, 28, and 30-32: See note following RCW 18.71A.010.
Intent—2024 c 62: See note following RCW 18.71A.020.
Findings—Intent—Effective date—2018 c 201: See notes following RCW 41.05.018.
Effective dates—2016 sp.s. c 29: See note following RCW 71.05.760.
Short title—Right of action—2016 sp.s. c 29: See notes following RCW 71.05.010.
Severability—1991 c 105: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 1991 c 105 s 6.]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 2019–2025 · leading case: In Re The Detention Of L.K.
In Re The Detention Of L.K. (2020)
“The State is not relieved of this obligation merely because a physician believes an attempt to obtain informed consent would be futile. LK appeals a superior court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications.”
In Re The Detention Of B.m. (2019)
“SCOPE AND MEANING OF RCW 71.05.215 AND .217 B.M. also emphasizes that the language in two of the commissioner’s findings that (1) B.”
In Re The Detention Of: P.r. (2021)
“2 RCW 71.05.215 and RCW 71.05.217 both were amended in 2020, with an effective date after the superior court’s order.”
In Re The Detention Of A.N. (2023)
“Because of the liberty interest at stake, the Washington Legislature has outlined procedural safeguards within RCW 71.05.215 and RCW 71.05.217. The petitioning party must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence a compelling state interest that justifies overriding a…”
Detention Of M.N. (2025)
“RCW 71.05.215(1); RCW 71.05.217(1)(j). But this right is not absolute.”
Detention Of S.m. (2023)
“” RCW 71.05.215(1). 9 No. 57820-4-II If the State wishes to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to an individual, RCW 71.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.215(1) — 6 cases
In Re The Detention Of B.m. (2019)
“SCOPE AND MEANING OF RCW 71.05.215 AND .217 B.M. also emphasizes that the language in two of the commissioner’s findings that (1) B.”
In Re The Detention Of: P.r. (2021)
“2 RCW 71.05.215 and RCW 71.05.217 both were amended in 2020, with an effective date after the superior court’s order.”
In Re The Detention Of L.K. (2020)
“The State is not relieved of this obligation merely because a physician believes an attempt to obtain informed consent would be futile. LK appeals a superior court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications.”
Detention Of M.N. (2025)
“RCW 71.05.215(1); RCW 71.05.217(1)(j). But this right is not absolute.”
Detention Of S.m. (2023)
“” RCW 71.05.215(1). 9 No. 57820-4-II If the State wishes to involuntarily administer antipsychotic medication to an individual, RCW 71.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.215(2) — 2 cases
In Re The Detention Of B.m. (2019)
“SCOPE AND MEANING OF RCW 71.05.215 AND .217 B.M. also emphasizes that the language in two of the commissioner’s findings that (1) B.”
In Re The Detention Of L.K. (2020)
“The State is not relieved of this obligation merely because a physician believes an attempt to obtain informed consent would be futile. LK appeals a superior court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications.”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.215(2)(a) — 2 cases
In Re The Detention Of L.K. (2020)
“The State is not relieved of this obligation merely because a physician believes an attempt to obtain informed consent would be futile. LK appeals a superior court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications.”
In Re The Detention Of A.N. (2023)
“Because of the liberty interest at stake, the Washington Legislature has outlined procedural safeguards within RCW 71.05.215 and RCW 71.05.217. The petitioning party must prove by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence a compelling state interest that justifies overriding a…”
— Wash. Rev. Code § 71.05.215(2)(e) — 1 case
In Re The Detention Of L.K. (2020)
“The State is not relieved of this obligation merely because a physician believes an attempt to obtain informed consent would be futile. LK appeals a superior court order authorizing the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medications.”
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.