Abstract

Although states differ in how they regulate involuntary civil commitment and involuntary (court-ordered) treatment (ICC/IT), all allow this intervention as a means to safeguard individuals who, as a result of serious and active mental illness, are at significant risk of harming themselves and/or others or are at serious risk of physical harm from self-neglect. However, invoking ICC can create significant conflicts for professionals who must balance competing ethical obligations. The psychiatrist may be faced with economic and other disincentives when ICC/IT is considered. Nonetheless, the treating psychiatrist, tasked with advocating for the patient's best medical interests, may find ICC/IT clinically necessary at times, and under such circumstances should be able (and willing) to meaningfully participate in the necessary legal processes. [ Psychiatr Ann . 2024;54(5):e137–e140.]