What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the bases on which the Supreme Court rested its decision with regard to the legal provision that the Court considered in the case. Consider "judicial review (national level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of the federal government, including an interstate compact. Consider "judicial review (state level)" if the majority determined the constitutionality of some action taken by some unit or official of a state or local government. Consider "statutory construction" for cases where the majority interpret a federal statute, treaty, or court rule; if the Court interprets a federal statute governing the powers or jurisdiction of a federal court; if the Court construes a state law as incompatible with a federal law; or if an administrative official interprets a federal statute. Do not consider "statutory construction" where an administrative agency or official acts "pursuant to" a statute, unless the Court interprets the statute to determine if administrative action is proper. Consider "interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order" if the majority treats federal administrative action in arriving at its decision.Consider "diversity jurisdiction" if the majority said in approximately so many words that under its diversity jurisdiction it is interpreting state law. Consider "federal common law" if the majority indicate that it used a judge-made "doctrine" or "rule; if the Court without more merely specifies the disposition the Court has made of the case and cites one or more of its own previously decided cases unless the citation is qualified by the word "see."; if the case concerns admiralty or maritime law, or some other aspect of the law of nations other than a treaty; if the case concerns the retroactive application of a constitutional provision or a previous decision of the Court; if the case concerns an exclusionary rule, the harmless error rule (though not the statute), the abstention doctrine, comity, res judicata, or collateral estoppel; or if the case concerns a "rule" or "doctrine" that is not specified as related to or connected with a constitutional or statutory provision. Consider "Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction" otherwise (i.e., the residual code); for issues pertaining to non-statutorily based Judicial Power topics; for cases arising under the Court's original jurisdiction; in cases in which the Court denied or dismissed the petition for review or where the decision of a lower court is affirmed by a tie vote; or in workers' compensation litigation involving statutory interpretation and, in addition, a discussion of jury determination and/or the sufficiency of the evidence.

Opinion:
WASHINGTON et al. v. HARPER
No. 88-599.
Argued October 11, 1989
Decided February 27, 1990
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to Part II, and the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, III, IV, and V, in which Rehnquist, C. J., and White, Blackmun, O’Connor, and & alia, JJ., joined. Blackmun, J., filed a concurring opinion, post, p. 236. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Brennan and Marshall, JJ., joined, post, p. 237.
William L. Williams, Senior Assistant Attorney General of Washington, argued the cause for petitioners. With him on the briefs were Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General, and Glenn L. Harvey, Assistant Attorney General.
Paul J. Larkin, Jr., argued the cause for the United States as amicus curiae urging reversal. With him on the brief was William C. Bryson, Acting Solicitor General.
Brian Reed Phillips, by appointment of the Court, 490 U. S. 1002, argued the cause for respondent. With him on the brief was Leonard Rubenstein.
Briefs of amici curiae urging reversal were filed for the State of California by John K. Van de Kamp, Attorney General, Richard B. Iglehart. Chief Assistant Attorney General, Kenneth C. Young, Assistant Attorney General, Kristofer Jorstad, Senior Supervising Deputy Attorney General, and Moms Lenk, Karl S. Mayer, and Bruce M. Slavin, Deputy Attorneys General; and for the American Psychiatric Association et al. by Joel I. Klein and Robert D. Luskin.
Briefs of amici curiae urging affirmance were filed for the Mental Health Legal Advisors Committee of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court et al. by Stan Goldman, Robert D. Fleischner, and Steven J. Schivartz; for the National Association of Protection and Advocacy Systems et al. by Arthur J. Rosenberg; and for the New Jersey Department of the Public Advocate by Linda G. Rosenziueig.
Briefs of amici curiae were filed for the American Psychological Association by Clifford D. Stromberg and John G. Roberts, Jr.; for the Coalition for the Fundamental Rights and Equality of Ex-Patients by Peter Margulies; and for the Washington Community Mental Health Council et al. by Barbara A. Weiner.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The central question before us is whether a judicial hearing is required before the State may treat a mentally ill prisoner with antipsychotic drugs against his will. Resolution of the case requires us to discuss the protections afforded the prisoner under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
I
Respondent Walter Harper was sentenced to prison in 1976 for robbery. From 1976 to 1980, he was incarcerated at the Washington State Penitentiary. Most of that time, respondent was housed in the prison’s mental health unit, where he consented to the administration of antipsychotic drugs. Antipsychotic drugs, sometimes called “neuroleptics” or “psychotropic drugs,” are medications commonly used in treating mental disorders such as schizophrenia. Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 2-3, n. 1. As found by the trial court, the effect of these and similar drugs is to alter the chemical balance in the brain, the desired result being that the medication will assist the patient in organizing his or her thought procésses and regaining a rational state of mind. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-7.
Respondent was paroled in 1980 on the condition that he participate in psychiatric treatment. While on parole, he continued to receive treatment at the psychiatric ward at Harborview Medical Center in Seattle, Washington, and was later sent to Western State Hospital pursuant to a civil commitment order. In December 1981, the State revoked respondent’s parole after he assaulted two nurses at a hospital in Seattle.
Upon his return to prison, respondent was sent to the Special Offender Center (SOC or Center), a 144-bed correctional institute established by the Washington Department of Corrections to diagnose and treat convicted felons with serious mental disorders. At the Center, psychiatrists first diagnosed respondent as suffering from a manic-depressive disorder. At first, respondent gave voluntary consent to treatment, including the administration of antipsychotic medications. In November 1982, he refused to continue taking the prescribed medications. The treating physician then sought to medicate respondent over his objections, pursuant to SOC Policy 600.30. ,
Policy 600.30 was developed in partial response to this Court’s decision in Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480 (1980). The Policy has several substantive and procedural components. First, if a psychiatrist determines that an inmate should be treated with antipsychotic drugs but the inmate does not consent, the inmate may be subjected to involuntary treatment with the drugs only if he (1) suffers from a “mental disorder” and (2) is “gravely disabled” or poses a “likelihood of serious harm” to himself, others, or their property. Only a psychiatrist may order or approve the medication. Second, an inmate who refuses to take the medication voluntarily is entitled to a hearing before a special committee consisting of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and the Associate Superintendent of the Center, none of whom may be, at the time of the hearing, involved in the inmate’s treatment or diagnosis. If the committee determines by a majority vote that the inmate suffers from a mental disorder and is gravely disabled or dangerous, the inmate may be medicated against his will, provided the psychiatrist is in the majority.
Third, the inmate has certain procedural rights before, during, and after the hearing. He must be given at least 24 hours’ notice of the Center’s intent to convene an involuntary medication hearing, during which time he may not be medicated. In addition, he must receive notice of the tentative diagnosis, the factual basis for the diagnosis, and why the staff believes medication is necessary. At the hearing, the inmate has the right to attend; to present evidence, including witnesses; to cross-examine staff witnesses; and to the assistance of a lay adviser who has not been involved in his case and who understands the psychiatric issues involved. Minutes of the hearing must be kept, and a copy provided to the inmate. The inmate has the right to appeal the committee’s decision to the Superintendent of the Center within 24 hours, and the Superintendent must decide the appeal within 24 hours after its receipt. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-3. The inmate may seek judicial review of a committee decision in state court by means of a personal restraint petition or extraordinary writ. See Wash. Rules App. Proc. 16.3 to 16.17; App. to Pet. for Cert. B-8.
Fourth, after the initial hearing, involuntary medication can continue only with periodic review. When respondent first refused medication, a committee, again composed of a nontreating psychiatrist, a psychologist, and the Center’s Associate Superintendent, was required to review an inmate’s case after the first seven days of treatment. If the committee reapproved the treatment, the treating psychiatrist was required to review the case and prepare a report for the Department of Corrections medical director every 14 days while treatment continued.
In this case, respondent was absent when members of the Center staff met with the committee before the hearing. The committee then conducted the hearing in accordance with the Policy, with respondent being present and assisted by a nurse practitioner from another institution. The committee found that respondent was a danger to others as a result of a mental disease or disorder, and approved the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs. On appeal, the Superintendent upheld the committee’s findings. Beginning on November 23, 1982, respondent was involuntarily medicated for about one year. Periodic review occurred in accordance with the Policy.
In November 1983, respondent was transferred from the Center to the Washington State Reformatory. While there, he took no medication, and as a result, his condition deteriorated. He was retransferred to the Center after only one month. Respondent was the subject of another committee hearing in accordance with Policy 600.30, and the committee again approved medication against his will. Respondent continued to receive antipsychotic drugs, subject to the required periodic reviews, until he was transferred to the Washington State Penitentiary in June 1986.
In February 1985, respondent filed suit in state court under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (1982 ed.) against various individual defendants and the State, claiming that the failure to provide a judicial hearing before the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication violated the Due Process, Equal Protection, and Free Speech Clauses of both the Federal and State Constitutions, as well as state tort law. He sought both damages and declaratory and injunctive relief. After a bench trial in March 1987, the court held that, although respondent had a liberty interest in not being subjected to the involuntary administration of antipsychotic medication, the procedures contained in the Policy met the requirements of due process as stated in Vitek.
On appeal, the Washington Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case to the trial court. 110 Wash. 2d 873, 759 P. 2d 358 (1988). Agreeing with the trial court that respondent had a liberty interest in refusing antipsychotic medications, the court concluded that the “highly intrusive nature” of treatment with antipsychotic medications warranted greater procedural protections than those necessary to protect the liberty interests at stake in Vitek. 110 Wash. 2d, at 880-881, 759 P. 2d, at 363. It held that, under the Due Process Clause, the State could administer antipsychotic medication to a competent, nonconsenting inmate only if, in a judicial hearing at which the inmate had the full panoply of adversarial procedural protections, the State proved by “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence that the administration of antipsychotic medication was both necessary and effective for furthering a compelling state interest. Id., at 883-884, 759 P. 2d, at 364-365.
We granted certiorari, 489 U. S. 1064 (1989), and we reverse.
II
Respondent contends that because the State has ceased administering antipsychotic drugs to him against his will, the case is moot. We disagree.
Even if we confine our attention to those facts found in the record, a live case or controversy between the parties remains. There is no evidence that respondent has recovered from his mental illness. Since being sentenced to prison in 1976, he has been diagnosed and treated for a serious mental disorder. Even while on parole, respondent continued to receive treatment, at one point under a civil commitment order, at state mental hospitals. At the time of trial, after his transfer from the Center for a second time, respondent was still diagnosed as suffering from schizophrenia.
Respondent continues to serve his sentence in the Washington state prison system, and is subject to transfer to the Center at any time. Given his medical history, and the fact that he has been transferred not once but twice to the Center from other state penal institutions during the period 1982-1986, it is reasonable to conclude that there is a strong likelihood that respondent may again be transferred to the Center. Once there, given his medical history, it is likely that, absent the holding of the Washington Supreme Court, Center officials would seek to administer antipsychotic medications pursuant to Policy 600.30.
On the record before us, the case is not moot. The alleged injury likely would recur but for the decision of the Washington Supreme Court. This sufficiently overcomes the claim of mootness in the circumstances of the case and under our precedents. See Vitek, 445 U. S., at 486-487.
Ill
The Washington Supreme Court gave its primary attention to the procedural component of the Due Process Clause. It phrased the issue before it as whether “a prisoner [is] entitled to a judicial hearing before antipsychotic drugs can be administered against his will.” 110 Wash. 2d, at 874, 759 P. 2d, at 360. The court, however, did more than establish judicial procedures for making the factual determinations called for by Policy 600.30. It required that a different set of determinations than those set forth in the Policy be made as a precondition to medication without the inmate’s consent. Instead of having to prove, pursuant to the Policy, only that the mentally ill inmate is “gravely disabled” or that he presents a “serious likelihood of harm” to himself or others, the court required the State to prove that it has a compelling interest in administering the medication and that the administration of the drugs is necessary and effective to further that interest. The decisionmaker was required further to consider and make written findings regarding either the inmate’s desires or a “substituted judgment” for the inmate analogous to the medical treatment decision for an incompetent person. Id., at 883-884, 759 P. 2d, at 365.
The Washington Supreme Court’s decision, as a result, has both substantive and procedural aspects. It is axiomatic that procedural protections must be examined in terms of the substantive rights at stake. But identifying the contours of the substantive right remains a task distinct from deciding what procedural protections are necessary to protect that right. “[T]he substantive issue involves a definition of th[e] protected constitutional interest, as well as identification of the conditions under which competing state interests might outweigh it. The procedural issue concerns the minimum procedures required by the Constitution for determining that the individual’s liberty interest actually is outweighed in a particular instance.” Mills v. Rogers, 457 U. S. 291, 299 (1982) (citations omitted).
Restated in the terms of this case, the substantive issue is what factual circumstances must exist before the State may administer antipsychotic drugs to the prisoner against his will; the procedural issue is whether the State’s nonjudicial mechanisms used to determine the facts in a particular case are sufficient. The Washington Supreme Court in effect ruled upon the substance of the inmate’s right, as well as the procedural guarantees, and both are encompassed by our grant of certiorari. We address these questions beginning with the substantive one.
As a matter of state law, the Policy itself undoubtedly confers upon respondent a right to be free from the arbitrary administration of antipsychotic medication. In Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460 (1983), we held that Pennsylvania had created a protected liberty interest on the part of prison inmates to avoid administrative segregation by enacting regulations that “used language of an unmistakably mandatory character, requiring that certain procedures ‘shall,’ ‘will,’ or ‘must’ be employed, and that administrative segregation will not occur absent specified substantive predicates — viz., ‘the need for control,’ or ‘the threat of a serious disturbance.’” Id., at 471-472 (citations omitted). Policy 600.30 is similarly mandatory in character. By permitting a psychiatrist to treat an inmate with antipsychotic drugs against his wishes only if he is found to be (1) mentally ill and (2) gravely disabled or dangerous, the Policy creates a justifiable expectation on the part of the inmate that the drugs will not be administered unless those conditions exist. See also Vitek, 445 U. S., at 488-491.
We have no doubt that, in addition to the liberty interest created by the State’s Policy, respondent possesses a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id., at 491-494; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U. S. 307, 316 (1982); Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 600-601 (1979). Upon full consideration of the state administrative scheme, however, we find that the Due Process Clause confers upon respondent no greater right than that recognized under state law.
Respondent contends that the State, under the mandate of the Due Process Clause, may not override his choice to refuse antipsychotic drugs unless he has been found to be incompetent, and then only if the factfinder makes a substituted judgment that he, if competent, would consent to drug treatment. We disagree. The extent of a prisoner’s right under the Clause to avoid the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs must be defined in the context of the inmate’s confinement. The Policy under review requires the State to establish, by a medical finding, that a mental disorder exists which is likely to cause harm if not treated. Moreover, the fact that the medication must first be prescribed by a psychiatrist, and then approved by a reviewing psychiatrist, ensures that the treatment in question will be ordered only if it is in the prisoner’s medical interests, given the legitimate needs of his institutional confinement. These standards, which recognize both the prisoner’s medical interests and the State’s interests, meet the demands of the Due Process Clause.
The legitimacy, and the necessity, of considering the State’s interests in prison safety and security are well established by our cases. In Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987), and O’Lone v. Estate of Shabazz, 482 U. S. 342 (1987), we held that the proper standard for determining the validity of a prison regulation claimed to infringe on an inmate’s constitutional rights is to ask whether the regulation is “reasonably related to legitimate penological interests.” Turner, supra, at 89. This is true even when the constitutional right claimed to have been infringed is fundamental, and the State under other circumstances would have been required to satisfy a more rigorous standard of review. Estate of Shabazz, supra, at 349. The Washington Supreme Court declined to apply this standard of review to the Center’s Policy, reasoning that the liberty interest present here was distinguishable from the First Amendment rights at issue in both Turner and Estate of Shabazz. 110 Wash. 2d, at 883, n. 9, 759 P. 2d, at 364, n. 9. The court erred in refusing to apply the standard of reasonableness.
Our earlier determination to adopt this standard of review was based upon the need to reconcile our longstanding adherence to the principle that inmates retain at least some constitutional rights despite incarceration with the recognition that prison authorities are best equipped to make difficult decisions regarding prison administration. Turner, supra, at 84-85; Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union, Inc., 433 U. S. 119, 128 (1977). These two principles apply in all cases in which a prisoner asserts that a prison regulation violates the Constitution, not just those in which the prisoner invokes the First Amendment. We made quite clear that the standard of review we adopted in Turner applies to all circumstances in which the needs of prison administration implicate constitutional rights. See Turner, 482 U. S., at 85 (“Our task ... is to formulate a standard of review for prisoners’ constitutional claims that is responsive both to the ‘policy of judicial restraint regarding prisoner complaints and [to] the need to protect constitutional rights’”) (citation omitted); id., at 89 (“If Pell, Jones, and Bell have not already resolved the question posed in [Procunier v.] Martinez, [416 U. S. 396 (1974),] we resolve it now: when a prison regulation impinges on inmates’ constitutional rights, the regulation is valid if it is reasonably related to legitimate penological interests”); Estate of Shabazz, supra, at 349 (“To ensure that courts afford appropriate deference to prison officials, we have determined that prison regulations alleged to infringe constitutional rights are judged under a ‘reasonableness’ test less restrictive than that ordinarily applied to alleged infringements of fundamental constitutional rights”). In Turner itself we applied the reasonableness standard to a prison regulation that imposed severe restrictions on the inmate’s right to marry, a right protected by the Due Process Clause. See Turner, supra, at 95-96 (citing Zablocki v. Redhail, 434 U. S. 374 (1978), and Loving v. Virginia, 388 U. S. 1 (1967)). Our precedents require application of the standard here.
In Turner, we considered various factors to determine the reasonableness of a challenged prison regulation. Three are relevant here. “First, there must be a ‘valid, rational connection’ between the prison regulation and the legitimate governmental interest put forward to justify it.” 482 U. S., at 89 (quoting Block v. Rutherford, 468 U. S. 576, 586 (1984)). Second, a court must consider “the impact accommodation of the asserted constitutional right will have on guards and other inmates, and on the allocation of prison resources generally.” 482 U. S., at 90. Third, “the absence of ready alternatives is evidence of the reasonableness of a prison regulation,” but this does not mean that prison officials “have to set up and then shoot down every conceivable alternative method of accommodating the claimant’s constitutional complaint.” Id., at 90-91; see also Estate of Shabazz, supra, at 350.
Applying these factors to the regulation before us, we conclude that the Policy comports with constitutional requirements. There can be little doubt as to both the legitimacy and the importance of the governmental interest presented here. There are few cases in which the State’s interest in combating the danger posed by a person to both himself and others is greater than in a prison environment, which, “by definition,” is made up of persons with “a demonstrated proclivity for antisocial criminal, and often violent, conduct.” Hudson v. Palmer, 468 U. S. 517, 526 (1984); Jones, supra, at 132; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 561-562 (1974). We confront here the State’s obligations, not just its interests. The State has undertaken the obligation to provide prisoners with medical treatment consistent not only with their own medical interests, but also with the needs of the institution. Prison administrators have not only an interest in ensuring the safety of prison staffs and administrative personnel, see Hewitt, 459 U. S., at 473, but also the duty to take reasonable measures for the prisoners’ own safety. See Hudson, supra, at 526-527. These concerns have added weight when a penal institution, like the SOC, is restricted to inmates with mental illnesses. Where an inmate’s mental disability is the root cause of the threat he poses to the inmate population, the State’s interest in decreasing the danger to others necessarily encompasses an interest in providing him with medical treatment for his illness.
SOC Policy 600.30 is a rational means of furthering the State’s legitimate objectives. Its exclusive application is to inmates who are mentally ill and who, as a result of their illness, are gravely disabled or represent a significant danger to themselves or others. The drugs may be administered for no purpose other than treatment, and only under the direction of a licensed psychiatrist. There is considerable debate over the potential side effects of antipsychotic medications, but there is little dispute in the psychiatric profession that proper use of the drugs is one of the most effective means of treating and controlling a mental illness likely to cause violent behavior.
The alternative means proffered by respondent for accommodating his interest in rejecting the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs do not demonstrate the invalidity of the State’s policy. Respondent’s main contention is that, as a precondition to antipsychotic drug treatment, the State must find him incompetent, and then obtain court approval of the treatment using a “substituted judgment” standard. The suggested rule takes no account of the legitimate governmental interest in treating him where medically appropriate for the purpose of reducing the danger he poses. A rule that is in no way responsive to the State’s legitimate interests is not a proper accommodation, and can be rejected out of hand. Nor are physical restraints or seclusion “alternative[s] that fully accommodat[e] the prisoner’s rights at de minimis cost to valid penological interests.” Turner, supra, at 91. Physical restraints are effective only in the short term, and can have serious physical side effects when used on a resisting inmate, see Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 12, as well as leaving the staff at risk of injury while putting the restraints on or tending to the inmate who is in them. Furthermore, respondent has failed to demonstrate that physical restraints or seclusion are acceptable substitutes for antipsychotic drugs, in terms of either their medical effectiveness or their toll on limited prison resources.
We hold that, given the requirements of the prison environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest. Policy 600.30 comports with these requirements; we therefore reject respondent’s contention that its substantive standards are deficient under the Constitution.
iv
Having determined that state law recognizes a liberty interest, also protected by the Due Process Clause, which permits refusal of antipsychotic drugs unless certain preconditions are met, we address next what procedural protections are necessary to ensure that the decision to medicate an inmate against his will is neither arbitrary nor erroneous under the standards we have discussed above. The Washington Supreme Court held that a full judicial hearing, with the inmate being represented by counsel, was required by the Due Process Clause before the State could administer antipsychotic drugs to him against his will. In addition, the court held that the State must justify the authorization of involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs by “clear, cogent, and convincing” evidence. We hold that the administrative hearing procedures set by the SOC Policy do comport with procedural due process, and conclude that the Washington Supreme Court erred in requiring a judicial hearing as a prerequisite for the involuntary treatment of prison inmates.
A
The primary point of disagreement between the parties is whether due process requires a judicial decisionmaker. As written, the Policy requires that the decision whether to medicate an inmate against his will be made by a hearing committee composed of a psychiatrist, a psychologist, and the Center’s Associate Superintendent. None of the committee members may be involved, at the time of the hearing, in the inmate’s treatment or diagnosis; members are not disqualified from sitting on the committee, however, if they have treated or diagnosed the inmate in the past. The committee’s decision is subject to review by the Superintendent; if the inmate so desires, he may seek judicial review of the decision in a state court. See supra, at 216. Respondent contends that only a court should make the decision to medicate an inmate against his will.
The procedural protections required by the Due Process Clause must be determined with reference to the rights and interests at stake in the particular case. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972); Hewitt, 459 U. S., at 472; Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 12 (1979). The factors that guide us are well established. “Under Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319, 335 (1976), we consider the private interests at stake in a governmental decision, the governmental interests involved, and the value of procedural requirements in determining what process is due under the Fourteenth Amendment.” Hewitt, supra, at 473.
Respondent’s interest in avoiding the unwarranted administration of antipsychotic drugs is not insubstantial. The forcible injection of medication into a nonconsenting person’s body represents a substantial interference with that person’s liberty. Cf. Winston v. Lee, 470 U. S. 753 (1985); Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757, 772 (1966). The purpose of the drugs is to alter the chemical balance in a patient’s brain, leading to changes, intended to be beneficial, in his or her cognitive processes. See n. 1, supra. While the therapeutic benefits of antipsychotic drugs are well documented, it is also true that the drugs can have serious, even fatal, side effects. One such side effect identified by the trial court is acute dystonia, a severe involuntary spasm of the upper body, tongue, throat, or eyes. The trial court found that it may be treated and reversed within a few minutes through use of the medication Cogentin. Other side effects include akathesia (motor restlessness, often characterized by an inability to sit still); neuroleptic malignant syndrome (a relatively rare condition which can lead to death from cardiac dysfunction); and tardive dyskinesia, perhaps the most discussed side effect of antipsychotic drugs. See Finding of Fact 9, App. to Pet. for Cert. B-7; Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 6-9. Tardive dyskinesia is a neurological disorder, irreversible in some cases, that is characterized by involuntary, uncontrollable movements of various muscles, especially around the face. See Mills, 457 U. S., at 293, n. 1. The State, respondent, and amici sharply disagree about the frequency with which tar-dive dyskinesia occurs, its severity, and the medical profession’s ability to treat, arrest, or reverse the condition. A fair reading of the evidence, however, suggests that the proportion of patients treated with antipsychotic drugs who exhibit the symptoms of tardive dyskinesia ranges from 10% to 25%. According to the American Psychiatric Association, studies of the condition indicate that 60% of tardive dyskinesia is mild or minimal in effect, and about 10% may be characterized as severe. Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 14-16, and n. 12; see also Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 8.
Notwithstanding the risks that are involved, we conclude that an inmate’s interests are adequately protected, and perhaps better served, by allowing the decision to medicate to be made by medical professionals rather than a judge. The Due Process Clause “has never been thought to require that the neutral and detached trier of fact be law trained or a judicial or administrative officer.” Parham, 442 U. S., at 607. Though it cannot be doubted that the decision to medicate has societal and legal implications, the Constitution does not prohibit the State from permitting medical personnel to make the decision under fair procedural mechanisms. See id., at 607-609; cf. Youngberg, 457 U. S., at 322-323. Particularly where the patient is mentally disturbed, his own intentions will be difficult to assess and will be changeable in any event. Schwartz, Vingiano, & Perez, Autonomy and the Right to Refuse Treatment: Patients’ Attitudes After Involuntary Medication, 39 Hospital & Community Psychiatry 1049 (1988). Respondent’s own history of accepting and then refusing drug treatment illustrates the point. We cannot make the facile assumption that the patient’s intentions, or a substituted judgment approximating those intentions, can be determined in a single judicial hearing apart from the realities of frequent and ongoing clinical observation by medical professionals. Our holding in Parham that a judicial hearing was not required prior to the voluntary commitment of a child to a mental hospital was based on similar observations:
“. . . [D]ue process is not violated by use of informal, traditional medical investigative techniques. . . . The mode and procedure of medical diagnostic procedures is not the business of judges. . . .
“Although we acknowledge the fallibility of medical and psychiatric diagnosis, see O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 584 (1975) (concurring opinion), we do not accept the notion that the shortcomings of specialists can always be avoided by shifting the decision from a trained specialist using the traditional tools of medical science to an untrained judge or administrative hearing officer after a judicial-type hearing. Even after a hearing, the nonspecialist decisionmaker must make a medical-psychiatric decision. Common human experience and scholarly opinions suggest that the supposed protections of an adversary proceeding to determine the appropriateness of medical decisions for the commitment and treatment of mental and emotional illness may well be more illusory than real.” Parham, 442 U. S., at 607-609.
Nor can we ignore the fact that requiring judicial hearings will divert scarce prison resources, both money and the staff’s time, from the care and treatment of mentally ill inmates. See id., at 605-606.
Under Policy 600.30, the decisionmaker is asked to review a medical treatment decision made by a medical professional. That review requires two medical inquiries: first, whether the inmate suffers from a “mental disorder”; and second, whether, as a result of that disorder, he is dangerous to himself, others, or their property. Under the Policy, the hearing committee reviews on a regular basis the staff’s choice of both the type and dosage of drug to be administered, and can order appropriate changes. 110 Wash. 2d, at 875, 759 P. 2d, at 360. The risks associated with antipsychotic drugs are for the most part medical ones, best assessed by medical professionals. A State may conclude with good reason that a judicial hearing will not be as effective, as continuous, or as probing as administrative review using medical decisionmakers. We hold that due process requires no more.
A State’s attempt to set a high standard for determining when involuntary medication with antipsychotic drugs is permitted cannot withstand challenge if there are no procedural safeguards to ensure the prisoner’s interests are taken into account. Adequate procedures exist here. In particular, independence of the decisionmaker is addressed to our satisfaction by these procedures. None of the hearing committee members may be involved in the inmate’s current treatment or diagnosis. The record before us, moreover, is limited to the hearings given to respondent. There is no indication that any institutional biases affected or altered the decision to medicate respondent against his will. The trial court made specific findings that respondent has a history of assaultive behavior which his doctors attribute to his mental disease, and that all of the Policy’s requirements were met. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-4 to B-5, B-8. The court found also that the medical treatment provided to respondent, including the administration of antipsychotic drugs, was at' all times consistent “with the degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent psychiatrist in the State of Washington, acting in the same or similar circumstances.” Id., at B-8. In the absence of record evidence to the contrary, we are not willing to presume that members of the staff lack the necessary independence to provide an inmate with a full and fair hearing in accordance with the Policy. In previous cases involving medical decisions implicating similar liberty interests, we have approved use of similar internal decisionmakers. See Vitek, 445 U. S., at 496; Parham, supra, at 613-616. Cf. Wolff, 418 U. S., at 570-571 (prison officials sufficiently impartial to conduct prison disciplinary hearings). As we reasoned in Vitek, it is only by permitting persons connected with the institution to make these decisions that courts are able to avoid “unnecessary intrusion into either medical or correctional judgments.” Vitek, supra, at 496; see Turner, 482 U. S., at 84-85, 89..
B
The procedures established by the Center are sufficient to meet the requirements of due process in all other respects, and we reject respondent’s arguments to the contrary. The Policy provides for notice, the right to be present at an adversary hearing, and the right to present and cross-examine witnesses. See Vitek, supra, at 494-496. The procedural protections are not vitiated by meetings between the committee members and staff before the hearing. Absent evidence of resulting bias, or evidence that the actual decision is made before the hearing, allowing respondent to contest the staff’s position at the hearing satisfies the requirement that the opportunity to be heard “must be granted at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). We reject also respondent’s contention that the hearing must be conducted in accordance with the rules of evidence or that a “clear, cogent, and convincing” standard of proof is necessary. This standard is neither required nor helpful when medical personnel are making the judgment required by the regulations here. See Vitek, supra, at 494-495. Cf. Youngberg, 457 U. S., at 321-323. Finally, we note that under state law an inmate may obtain judicial review of the hearing committee’s decision by way of a personal restraint petition or petition for an extraordinary writ, and that the trial court found that the record compiled under the Policy was adequate to allow such review. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-8.
Respondent contends that the Policy is nonetheless deficient because it does not allow him to be represented by counsel. We disagree. “[I]t is less than crystal clear why lawyers must be available to identify possible errors in medical judgment.” Walters v. National Association of Radiation Survivors, 473 U. S. 305, 330 (1985) (emphasis in original). Given the nature of the decision to be made, we conclude that the provision of an independent lay adviser who understands the psychiatric issues involved is sufficient protection. See Vitek, supra, at 499-500 (Powell, J., concurring).
V
In sum, we hold that the regulation before us is permissible under the Constitution. It is an accommodation between an inmate’s liberty interest in avoiding the forced administration of antipsychotic drugs and the State’s interests in providing appropriate medical treatment to reduce the danger that an inmate suffering from a serious mental disorder represents to himself or others. The Due Process Clause does require certain essential procedural protections, all of which are provided by the regulation before us. The judgment of the Washington Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The drugs administered to respondent included Trialafon, Haldol, Prolixin, Taractan, Loxitane, Mellaril, and Navane. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-7. Like the Washington Supreme Court, we limit our holding to the category of antipsychotic drugs. See 110 Wash. 2d 873, 876, n. 3, 759 P. 2d 358, 361, n. 3 (1988).
Since that initial diagnosis, respondent has also been thought to have been suffering from schizo-affective disorder, and his current diagnosis is that he is schizophrenic.
The Policy’s definitions of the terms “mental disorder,” “gravely disabled,” and “likelihood of serious harm” are identical to the definitions of the terms as they are used in the state involuntary commitment statute. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-3. “Mental disorder” means “any organic, mental, or emotional impairment which has substantial adverse effects on an individual’s cognitive or volitional functions.” Wash. Rev. Code §71.05.020(2) (1987). “Gravely disabled” means “a condition in which a person, as a result of a mental disorder: (a) [i]s in danger of serious physical harm resulting from a failure to provide for his essential human needs of health or safety, or (b) manifests severe deterioration in routine functioning evidenced by repeated and escalating loss of cognitive or volitional control over his or her actions and is not receiving such care as is essential for his or her health or safety.” § 71.05.020(1). “Likelihood of serious harm” means “either: (a) [a] substantial risk that physical harm will be inflicted by an individual upon his own person, as evidenced by threats or attempts to commit suicide or inflict physical harm on one’s self, (b) a substantial risk that physical harm will be inflicted by an individual upon another, as evidenced by behavior which has caused such harm or which places another person or persons in reasonable fear of sustaining such harm, or (c) a substantial risk that physical harm will be inflicted by an individual upon the property of others, as evidenced by behavior which has caused substantial loss or damage to the property of others.” § 71.05.020(3).
The Policy was later amended to allow treatment for up to 14 days after the first hearing. Further treatment could be authorized only after the same committee conducted a second hearing on the written record. Thereafter, the treating psychiatrist was required to submit biweekly reports to the Department of Corrections medical director. At the end of 180 days, a new hearing was required to consider the need for continued treatment.
Because it decided the case on due process grounds, the court did not address respondent’s equal protection or free speech claims, and they are not before us here. The court also concluded that the individual defendants were entitled to qualified immunity, but remanded the case to the lower court for further consideration of respondent’s claims for injunctive and declaratory relief under § 1983, as well as of his claims under state law. See 110 Wash.' 2d, at 885-886, 759 P. 2d, at 366.
In response to our questions at oral argument, counsel for the State ■informed us that respondent was transferred back to the Center in April 1987 and involuntarily medicated pursuant to the Policy from September 1987 until May 1988. Counsel also informed us that, at the time of oral argument, respondent was at a state mental hospital for a competency determination on an unrelated criminal charge, and that regardless of the outcome of this criminal charge, respondent will return to the state prison system to serve the remainder of his sentence.
The two questions presented by the State in its petition for certiorari mirror the division between the substantive and procedural aspects of this case. In addition to seeking a grant of certiorari on the question whether respondent was entitled to “a judicial hearing and attendant adversarial procedural protections” prior to the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs, the State sought certiorari on the question, assuming that respondent “possesses a constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing medically prescribed antipsychotic medication,” whether the State must “prove a compelling state interest ... or [whether] the ‘reasonable relation’ standard of Turner v. Safley, [482 U. S. 78 (1987),] control[s].” Pet. for Cert. i.
Justice Stevens contends that the SOC Policy permits respondent’s doctors to treat him with antipsychotic medications against his will without reference to whether the treatment is medically appropriate. See post, at 243-245. For various reasons, we disagree. That an inmate is mentally ill and dangerous is a necessary condition to medication, but not a sufficient condition; before the hearing committee determines whether these requirements are met, the inmate's treating physician must first make the decision that medication is appropriate. The SOC is a facility whose purpose is not to warehouse the mentally ill, but to diagnose and treat convicted felons, with the desired goal being that they will recover to the point where they can function in a normal prison environment. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-2. In keeping with this purpose, an SOC psychiatrist must first prescribe the antipsychotic medication for the inmate, and the inmate must refuse it, before the Policy is invoked. Unlike Justice Stevens, we will not assume that physicians will prescribe these drugs foi' reasons unrelated to the medical needs of the patients: indeed, the ethics of the medical profession are to the contrary. See Hippocratic Oath; American Psychiatric Association, Principles of Medical Ethics With Annotations Especially Applicable to Psychiatry, in Codes of Professional Responsibility 129-135 (R. Gorlin ed. 1986). This consideration supports our interpretation of the State’s Policy as ensuring that antipsychotic medications will be administered only in those cases where appropriate by medical standards. We therefore agree with the State’s representations at oral argument that, under the Policy, antipsychotic medications can be administered only for treatment purposes, with the hearing committee reviewing the doctor’s decision to ensure that what has been prescribed is appropriate. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 13, 16.
See Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 10-11 (“Psychotropic medication is widely accepted within the psychiatric community as an extraordinarily effective treatment for both acute and chronic psychoses, particularly schizophrenia”); Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 6.
There is substantial evidence to the contrary. See Brief for American Psychiatric Association et al. as Amici Curiae 11-12; Soloff, Physical Controls: The Use of Seclusion and Restraint in Modern Psychiatric Practice, in Clinical Treatment of the Violent Person 119-137 (L. Roth ed. 1987) (documenting the risks and costs of qsing physical restraints and seclusion on violent patients)'.
Perhaps suggesting that the care given to respondent and the Center’s utilization of Policy 600.30 may have been suspect, Justice Stevens uses random citations from exhibits and documents submitted to the state trial court. By using isolated quotations of a few passages from medical and other records running into the hundreds of pages, Justice Stevens risks presenting a rather one-sided portrait of what they contain. An overview of these extensive materials reveals that respondent has a long history of serious, assaultive behavior, evidenced by at least 20 reported incidents of serious assaults on fellow inmates and staff. Respondent’s doctors attributed these incidents to his severe mental illness and believed that his assaultive tendencies increased when he did not receive medication. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-5. Respondent’s opposition to the involuntary administration of antipsychotic drugs, was premised at least in part upon his desire to self-medicate with street drugs, especially cocaine. See Lodging filed by Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Attorney General of Washington, Book 3, July 25, 1984, Progress Report. Finally, the records show without doubt that respondent has been the recipient of painstaking medical diagnosis and care while at the SOC. In any event, the trial court did not indicate which portions, if any, of these records, all of which are hearsay, it credited or relied upon in making its findings.
For these reasons, we do not intend to engage in a debate with Justice Stevens over how respondent’s medical and institutional records should be interpreted. We rely upon the findings of the trial court that “at all times relevant to this action, [respondent] suffered from a mental disorder and as a result of that disorder constituted a likelihood of serious harm to others,” App. to Pet. for Cert. B-8, and that “the medical treatment provided to [respondent] by defendants, including the administration of anti-psychotic medications, was consistent with the degree of care, skill, and learning expected of a reasonably prudent psychiatrist in the State of Washington, acting in the same or similar circumstances.” Ibid. Contrary to Justice Stevens’ cramped reading of this last finding, see post, at 245, n. 13, the breadth of its meaning equals the breadth of its language.
Justice Stevens is concerned with "discount[ing] the severity of these drugs.” See post, at 239, n. 5. As our discussion in the text indicates, we are well aware of the side effects and risks presented by these drugs; we also are well aware of the disagreements in the medical profession over the frequency, severity, and permanence of these side effects. We have set forth a fair assessment of the current state of medical knowledge about these drugs.
What Justice Stevens “discount[s]” are the benefits of these drugs, and the deference that is owed to medical professionals who have the full-time responsibility of caring for mentally ill inmates like respondent and who possess, as courts do not, the requisite knowledge and expertise to determine whether the drugs should be used in an individual case. After admitting that the proper administration of antipsychotic drugs is one of the most effective means of treating certain mental illnesses, Justice Stevens contends that the drugs are not indicated for “all patients,” and then questions the appropriateness of the treatment provided to respondent. See post, at 248, n. 16. All concede that the drugs are not the approved treatment in all cases. As for whether respondent’s medical treatment was appropriate, we are not so sanguine as to believe that on the basis of the limited record before us, we have the medical expertise and knowledge necessary to determine whether, on the basis of isolated parts of respondent’s medical records, the care given to him is consistent with good medical practice. Again, we must defer to the finding of the trial court, unchallenged by any party in this case, that the medical care provided to respondent was appropriate under medical standards. See n. 11, supra.
In an attempt to prove that internal decisionmakers lack the independence necessary to render impartial decisions, respondent and various amici refer us to other cases in which it is alleged that antipsychotic drugs were prescribed not for medical purposes, but to control or discipline mentally ill patients. See Brief for Respondent 28; Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 14. We rejected a similar claim in Parham, and do so again here, using much the same reasoning. “That such a practice may take place in some institutions in some places affords no basis for a finding as to [Washington’s] program,” Parham, 442 U. S., at 616, particularly in light of the trial court’s finding here that the administration of anti-psychotic drugs to respondent was consistent with good medical practice.
Moreover, the practical effect of mandating an outside decisionmaker such as an “independent psychiatrist” or judge in these circumstances may be chimerical. Review of the literature indicates that outside decision-makers concur with the treating physician’s decision to treat a patient involuntarily in most, if not all, cases. See Bloom, Faulkner, Holm, & Rawlinson, An Empirical View of Patients Exercising Their Right to Refuse Treatment, 7 Int’l J. Law & Psychiatry 315, 325 (1984) (independent examining physician used in Oregon psychiatric hospital concurred in decision to involuntarily medicate patients in 95% of cases); Hickman, Resnick, & Olson, Right to Refuse Psychotropic Medication: An Interdisciplinary Proposal, 6 Mental Disability Law Reporter 122, 130 (1982) (independent reviewing psychiatrist used in Ohio affirmed the recommendation of internal reviewer in 100% of cases). Review by judges of decisions to override a patient’s objections to medication yields similar results. Appelbaum, The Right to Refuse Treatment With Antipsychotic Medications: Retrospect and Prospect, 145 Am. J. Psychiatry 413, 417-418 (1988). In comparison, other studies reveal that review by internal decisionmakers is hardly as lackluster as Justice Stevens suggests. See Hickman, Resnick, & Olson, supra, at 130 (internal reviewer approved of involuntary treatment in 75% of cases); Zito, Lentz, Routt, & Olson, The Treatment Review Panel: A Solution to Treatment Refusal?, 12 Bull. American Academy of Psychiatry and Law 349 (1984) (internal review panel used in Minnesota mental hospital approved of involuntary medication in 67% of cases). See generally Appelbaum & Hoge, The Right to Refuse Treatment: What the Research Reveals, 4 Behavioral Sciences and Law 279, 288-290 (1986) (summarizing results of studies on how various institutions review patients’ decisions to refuse antipsychotic medications and noting “the infrequency with which refusals are allowed, regardless of the system or the decisionmaker”).

Question: What is the basis of the Supreme Court's decision?

Choices:
judicial review (national level)
judicial review (state level)
Supreme Court supervision of lower federal or state courts or original jurisdiction
statutory construction
interpretation of administrative regulation or rule, or executive order
diversity jurisdiction
federal common law

Answer: 0