The basic rights provided to citizens under most of the constitutional amendments have been extended to the inmates in our prisons. The source of the right to refuse treatment can be traced to case law beginning in the mid-1970s. During this time period, U.S. civil rights advocates, after successfully arguing for the rights of minorities, turned their attention to psychiatric patients. They argued for a greater recognition of the general rights of involuntary patients and for the specific right of these patients to refuse treatment. Since a voluntary patient cannot be treated against his or her will unless found incompetent to make treatment decisions, they reasoned that an involuntary patient should have a similar right. Since the late 1970s, an increasing number of state courts have recognized this common law principle as the doctrine of “informed consent.” The state courts have not been receptive to countering arguments, namely, economic considerations about lowering treatment costs and the need of mentally ill patients to be treated. Involuntary competent patients are allowed the right to refuse treatment because state courts are creating laws that provide them with a review board or court to make treatment decisions in their best interest. In the case of Sell v. United States (2003) the Supreme Court addressed the issue of the constitutionality of forcing a “mentally ill criminal defendant” to take psychoactive medications in order to regain competency to stand trial (Bassman, 2005, p. 488). This decision held that the constitution does allow the government to force the administration of psychoactive medications under certain circumstances (i.e., dangerousness, risk of harm to self or others) against the will of the defendant. In the case of Charles Sell, it was found that these circumstances were not met, and Mr. Sell won his right to refuse treatment (Bassman, 2005).