On March 7, 2002, a Federal Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit ruled that pre-trial detainees may be forcibly injected with anti-psychotic medication for the sole purpose of rendering them competent to stand trial. The surprising opinion in the case of United States v. Charles Thomas Sell marks a radical departure from the long-recognized liberty interest of individuals to be free from the involuntary administration of anti-psychotic drugs. Mr. Sell, a Missouri dentist charged with insurance fraud who suffers from delusional disorder, was found to pose no danger to himself or others. Nevertheless, based on the testimony of prosecution psychiatrists who argued the medication was in Sell's best medical interest, the court concluded that the state's interest in bringing him to trial outweighed Sell's right to refuse treatment.

"It's a shocking, inhumane decision. Now, all the government needs are allegations and a cooperative psychiatrist to forcibly drug any citizen," said Andrew Schlafly, General Counsel for the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons. The government may not constitutionally bring an incompetent defendant to trial, but legal doubts exists as to whether the government may take it upon itself to render defendants competent for all but the most extreme crimes such as murder.

Richard Glen Boire, attorney for the Center for Cognitive Liberty and Ethics (CCLE), which filed an amicus brief in support of Sell's petition for a rehearing, argued that the forced drugging violated Sell's fundamental first amendment right to freedom of thought and that forced drugging impermissibly infringes a person's autonomy to control his own mind and brain chemistry.

"On the one hand the government is bent on creating a "Drug Free America," while on the other hand it forces a citizen to take mind-altering drugs despite his repeated objection," said Mr. Boire. "The only thing consistent here is the government's astonishingly arrogant assertion that it has the power to determine which mind states and types of thinking are allowed and which it can prohibit or coerce."

A similar case is pending before the same court to allow the State to forcibly medicate a convicted murderer for execution.