CO Code § 27-65-104 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 27 - Behavioral Health|Article 65 - Care and Treatment of Persons With Mental Health Disorders|§ 27-65-104. Rights of Respondents

 Unless specifically stated in an order by the court, a respondent shall not forfeit any legal right or suffer legal disability by reason of the provisions of this article.   History. Source: L. 2010: Entire article added with relocations,(SB 10-175), ch. 188, p. 682, § 2, effective April 29.    Editor's note:   This section is similar to former § 27-10-104 as it existed prior to 2010.   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 § 27-65-104 is similar to § 27-10-104 as it existed prior to the 2010 amendments to this article, relevant cases construing that provision 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).   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).