Opinion ID: 344768
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Right to Treatment

Text: 38 A right to treatment for mental illness was recognized by this court in Rouse v. Cameron, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 366, 373 F.2d 451 (1967). In that decision the court, by Chief Judge Bazelon, found that persons involuntarily committed under § 24-301 have a right to treatment based on the 1964 Hospitalization of the Mentally Ill Act, D.C.Code § 21-562, and noted that the denial of his right might have constitutional implications. This right, which was held to be cognizable in habeas corpus, 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 367, 373 F.2d at 452, 39 requires the hospital to show that initial and periodic inquiries are made into the needs and conditions of the patient with a view to providing suitable treatment for him, and that the program provided is suited to his particular needs. 40 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 371, 373 F.2d at 456. Appellant asserts, providing no direct support, that the right to treatment implies that confinement must be at an appropriate facility, and that a maximum security facility for the criminally mentally ill is patently not an appropriate facility for appellant who is not suffering from mental illness but from mental retardation, a mental defect. Appellant Br. 14. This is the reason, he argues, that separate facilities have been provided by statute for the civilly committed mentally diseased and mentally retarded. See 179 U.S.App.D.C. at ----, 553 F.2d at 114, supra. 41 Appellant overstates the scope of the right to treatment recognized by Rouse v. Cameron. The court stated in that case that (t)he hospital need not show that the treatment will cure or improve (the patient) but only that there is a bona fide effort to do so. 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 371, 373 F.2d at 456. There is evidence in the record indicating that there has not only been a bona fide effort to treat appellant, but that the treatment provided is suited to his particular needs and that his condition has improved during his confinement to Saint Elizabeths. Appellant's IQ has risen from 55 to 65 during his commitment, R. 8, 18. 15 While appellant is still considered too dangerous to warrant unconditional release, his ability to interact with others, initially very minimal, has progressed to the point that the hospital superintendent recommended on January 30, 1973, that appellant be conditionally released on weekends. 16 His conditional release was granted and continues. There has been no showing that the opportunity for treatment has been exhausted or treatment is otherwise inappropriate, 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 374, 373 F.2d at 459. When faced with a similar argument, this court previously held that it was apparent from the record that treatment will be available . . . at St. Elizabeths to a civilly committed patient who suffered from mental retardation, In re Alexander, supra, 125 U.S.App.D.C. at 355, 372 F.2d at 928. We now hold that on the record in this case it is equally apparent that adequate treatment is being provided to appellant. 17