Research Report: The Complexities of Involuntary Treatment for Substance Use Disorders

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

Abstract

Substance use disorders (SUDs) represent a pervasive global health crisis, impacting millions and exacting a heavy toll on individuals, families, and societal structures. In response to the profound challenges posed by SUDs, particularly the escalating rates of overdose and associated public health emergencies, various jurisdictions, notably within the United States, have increasingly resorted to involuntary treatment measures. This comprehensive research report provides an exhaustive examination of these compulsory interventions. It meticulously dissects the intricate legal frameworks that permit and govern involuntary treatment across diverse states, offering a detailed analysis of their legislative underpinnings and procedural variations. Furthermore, the report rigorously evaluates the empirical evidence pertaining to the effectiveness of involuntary measures, critically comparing their short-term and long-term outcomes against those achieved through voluntary, patient-centered treatment modalities. A substantial portion of this analysis is dedicated to exploring the profound ethical dilemmas inherent in compelling individuals into treatment, particularly concerning fundamental principles of bodily autonomy, civil liberties, and the potential for stigmatization and harm. Finally, the report assesses the critical infrastructure and comprehensive support systems indispensable for the successful and ethical implementation of any treatment strategy, whether voluntary or involuntary. By delving into these multifaceted dimensions, this report aims to furnish a nuanced, evidence-informed understanding of the profound complexities, inherent tensions, and significant implications associated with the practice of involuntary treatment for SUDs, advocating for an integrated public health approach.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

1. Introduction

Substance use disorders (SUDs), characterized by compulsive substance seeking and use despite harmful consequences, constitute one of the most pressing public health challenges of the 21st century. The World Health Organization (WHO) identifies substance abuse as a major contributor to the global burden of disease, leading to premature mortality, disability, and profound societal costs [1]. In the United States alone, millions of individuals grapple with SUDs, contributing to an opioid crisis, an alarming surge in overdose deaths, and significant strain on healthcare, criminal justice, and social welfare systems. The economic burden, encompassing healthcare expenditures, lost productivity, and crime-related costs, runs into hundreds of billions of dollars annually [2]. Beyond the quantifiable metrics, SUDs decimate families, erode social fabric, and diminish the quality of life for those directly affected and their communities.

Historically, approaches to SUDs have ranged from punitive criminalization to medicalization. Modern public health models predominantly advocate for voluntary participation in treatment, grounded in the widely accepted principle that sustained recovery is more likely when individuals actively engage in and commit to their healing process. This voluntary paradigm emphasizes patient autonomy, self-determination, and the development of intrinsic motivation, aligning with evidence-based therapeutic principles such as motivational interviewing and the cultivation of a strong therapeutic alliance [3].

However, the chronic and relapsing nature of SUDs, particularly when compounded by severe cognitive impairment, acute intoxication, or life-threatening risks such as overdose, has led some jurisdictions to explore or re-embrace involuntary treatment measures. These measures, often rooted in historical civil commitment statutes originally designed for mental illness, compel individuals to undergo assessment or treatment without their explicit consent. Proponents argue that such interventions are a necessary last resort, aimed at protecting individuals who are deemed a danger to themselves or others due to their substance use, or who are so impaired that they cannot make rational decisions about their own well-being. This perspective often invokes the state’s parens patriae power (the government’s role as guardian of those unable to care for themselves) or its ‘police power’ (the authority to protect the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens) [4].

The implementation of involuntary treatment, while framed as a benevolent intervention, ignites fervent debates and raises critical questions across legal, ethical, and clinical domains. Are these measures legally defensible given fundamental rights to liberty and bodily integrity? Are they clinically effective in achieving sustained recovery, especially when compared to voluntary alternatives? Do they violate core ethical principles such as autonomy and non-maleficence? And critically, does the existing healthcare infrastructure possess the capacity and quality of resources to support such mandated interventions effectively? This report systematically addresses these complex facets, aiming to provide a comprehensive, evidence-informed perspective on the intricate landscape of involuntary treatment for SUDs.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

2. Legal Frameworks for Involuntary Treatment

Involuntary commitment laws for individuals with SUDs represent a contentious intersection of public health imperatives, individual liberties, and judicial oversight. These statutes empower the state to mandate assessment or treatment for individuals deemed incapable of making sound decisions regarding their health or posing a significant risk to themselves or others due to their substance use. The specifics of these legal frameworks, however, exhibit considerable heterogeneity across the United States, reflecting diverse legislative philosophies, judicial interpretations, and societal values [5].

2.1 Overview of Involuntary Commitment Laws

The legal authority for involuntary commitment derives primarily from two long-standing doctrines: the state’s parens patriae power and its ‘police power.’ The parens patriae doctrine allows the state to act as a benevolent guardian for individuals who are unable to care for themselves due, for example, to severe mental incapacitation or a profound substance use disorder that compromises their decision-making capacity. This doctrine justifies intervention when an individual is deemed a danger to themselves, such as through self-neglect, severe self-harm, or chronic overdose risk. Conversely, the ‘police power’ doctrine permits the state to intervene when an individual’s actions pose a clear and present danger to others, such as driving under the influence or committing violent acts while intoxicated. In the context of SUDs, this often extends to behaviors that threaten public safety or order [4].

Central to any involuntary commitment proceeding are the constitutional requirements of due process, as mandated by the Fourteenth Amendment. These safeguards are designed to protect individuals’ fundamental rights to liberty and ensure fair legal proceedings. Key due process elements typically include: adequate notice of the proceedings, the right to a formal hearing before an impartial decision-maker (usually a judge), the right to legal counsel (often court-appointed if indigent), the right to present evidence and cross-examine witnesses, and the requirement that the state prove the need for commitment by ‘clear and convincing evidence’ [6]. This high evidentiary standard reflects the significant deprivation of liberty involved.

The most common legal standard for involuntary commitment across states is the ‘danger to self or others’ criterion. However, the precise definition and application of ‘danger’ can vary substantially. For instance, some states define danger to self as including grave disability, meaning the individual is so impaired by their SUD that they cannot provide for their basic needs (food, shelter, safety). Others may focus more narrowly on imminent physical harm or suicide risk. The challenge in applying these standards to SUDs lies in the chronic and progressive nature of the disease, where the ‘danger’ may manifest as a cumulative risk of overdose, organ damage, or long-term health deterioration, rather than an immediate, acute threat [7]. This makes it difficult to establish the ‘imminence’ often required by legal statutes, particularly in the absence of a co-occurring acute psychiatric crisis. The expansion of these laws to include SUDs often involves legislative amendments that specifically enumerate addiction-related criteria or broaden the interpretation of existing mental health commitment statutes.

Historically, civil commitment laws in the U.S. were broad, leading to concerns about arbitrary detention. Landmark legal cases in the 1970s, such as O’Connor v. Donaldson (1975), established stricter criteria, emphasizing that individuals cannot be involuntarily confined merely for being mentally ill; they must also be dangerous or gravely disabled. While these cases primarily addressed mental health, their principles have influenced the evolution of SUD commitment laws, pushing for more defined and narrow criteria. Despite these advancements, significant inconsistencies and controversies persist regarding their application to substance use [8].

2.2 State-Specific Legislation

Variations in state legislation underscore the lack of a uniform national approach to involuntary SUD treatment, leading to a patchwork of laws with differing thresholds, procedures, and available resources. Two prominent examples illustrate this diversity and the ongoing debates:

• Florida’s Marchman Act (Hal S. Marchman Alcohol and Other Drug Services Act of 1993): Enacted to provide a civil alternative to criminal justice involvement for individuals with SUDs, the Marchman Act allows for involuntary assessment and stabilization, and potentially longer-term treatment, for individuals impaired by substance use. The petition process is relatively accessible, permitting family members, concerned individuals, health professionals, and law enforcement to initiate proceedings. A sworn petition must demonstrate a good faith belief that the individual is substance-impaired and has lost the power of self-control with respect to substance use; that they are likely to suffer from neglect or refuse to care for themselves; or that they have inflicted or threatened harm to others [9].

  Upon a judicial finding that the criteria are met, the individual can be ordered to undergo an involuntary assessment and stabilization period, typically up to five or seven days. During this period, medical and psychological evaluations are conducted, and efforts are made to encourage the individual to voluntarily engage in longer-term treatment. If the individual refuses and the criteria for continued involuntary treatment are still met, a petition for extended involuntary treatment (up to 90 days, renewable) can be filed, requiring another court hearing. The legislative intent behind the Marchman Act was to facilitate early intervention and divert individuals from the criminal justice system by offering a pathway to treatment. However, critics argue that its implementation often falls short, with a focus on acute detoxification rather than comprehensive care. The rapid assessment period may not be sufficient for individuals to engage meaningfully, and the transition to long-term care is frequently disrupted by a lack of appropriate, available treatment slots, especially for those without adequate insurance or resources. Concerns also arise regarding potential misuse by families in non-crisis situations or the coercive nature undermining therapeutic trust [10].

• Massachusetts’ Section 35 (Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter 111B, Section 35): This statute permits the involuntary commitment of individuals with SUDs for treatment for a period of up to 90 days. Unlike some other states, the process in Massachusetts can be initiated by a police officer, physician, or a family member filing a petition in district court, alleging that the person’s substance use poses a ‘likelihood of serious harm’ to themselves or others. This ‘likelihood of serious harm’ is defined specifically to include suicidal or violent conduct, or an inability to care for one’s basic needs. The petition leads to a court hearing, often within a day, where a judge determines if the criteria for commitment are met [11].

  Individuals committed under Section 35 are often placed in locked, secure facilities, which, historically and sometimes presently, include correctional facilities or units within state hospitals designed more for custody than therapeutic intervention. This aspect has drawn significant criticism, with advocates arguing that it amounts to a punitive approach rather than a public health one. The quality of care provided during the commitment period has been a major point of contention, with concerns about the availability of evidence-based practices like medication-assisted treatment (MAT), individualized therapy, and post-discharge planning. Studies have tragically shown that individuals committed under Section 35 are at a significantly higher risk of fatal overdose shortly after release compared to those who receive voluntary treatment [12]. This increased risk is often attributed to a loss of tolerance during the period of abstinence, coupled with inadequate linkage to community-based recovery supports upon discharge, leading individuals back to their previous environments with heightened vulnerability.

2.3 Variations Across States

A 2023 study highlighted the stark reality that 37 states and the District of Columbia have some form of involuntary commitment laws specifically for SUDs, while 13 states do not [5]. This inconsistency creates a complex legal landscape where an individual’s rights and access to treatment can dramatically differ based solely on their geographic location. The standards for commitment vary significantly, encompassing:

• Imminent Danger to Self or Others: This is the most common standard, but its interpretation varies widely. Some states require an immediate, articulable threat, while others consider chronic, self-destructive behavior (e.g., repeated overdoses, severe self-neglect) as meeting this threshold.
• Grave Disability: This criterion applies when an individual, due to their SUD, is unable to provide for their basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, or medical care, posing a substantial risk of serious harm to themselves.
• Loss of Self-Control/Inability to Make Rational Decisions: Some statutes focus on the individual’s diminished capacity to make informed decisions about their own well-being due to the pervasive effects of addiction.
• Likelihood of Serious Harm: A broader standard that may encompass a pattern of behavior indicating a high probability of future harm, rather than requiring immediate danger.

Beyond these criteria, variations also exist in who can petition for commitment (e.g., family members, police, physicians, social workers), the duration of commitment periods (ranging from a few days for assessment to 90 days or more for treatment), and the types of facilities where individuals are placed (from dedicated treatment centers to correctional facilities). This lack of uniformity raises profound concerns about the equitable application of these laws, the potential for discriminatory practices, and the ethical dilemmas faced by healthcare providers and legal professionals operating in different jurisdictions. It also highlights the ongoing struggle to balance individual autonomy with public safety and the perceived urgency of addressing the opioid crisis through coercive means [13].

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

3. Effectiveness of Involuntary Treatment

The efficacy of involuntary treatment for substance use disorders remains a subject of intense debate, with existing research presenting a mixed and often contradictory picture. While proponents cite potential benefits in crisis intervention, critics point to a lack of evidence for long-term effectiveness, particularly when compared to voluntary, patient-centered approaches.

3.1 Short-Term Outcomes

In the immediate term, involuntary treatment can serve as a critical intervention in life-threatening situations. For individuals in acute intoxication, severe withdrawal, or experiencing repeated overdoses, compulsory commitment can provide a necessary pathway to medical stabilization. It can temporarily remove individuals from hazardous environments, interrupt ongoing substance use, and prevent immediate risks such as overdose, severe health complications, or engagement in dangerous behaviors that harm themselves or others [14].

During this short-term period, often involving detoxification and initial assessment, healthcare providers can address acute medical issues, manage withdrawal symptoms, and attempt to stabilize the individual’s physical and mental state. This immediate intervention can be life-saving and may provide a window of opportunity for individuals to regain some cognitive clarity. For family members desperately seeking help for a loved one unable or unwilling to seek it themselves, involuntary commitment can offer a sense of relief and hope that a critical cycle of addiction is being interrupted. However, it is crucial to distinguish this immediate stabilization from comprehensive, long-term treatment. Short-term outcomes, while important, do not necessarily translate into sustained recovery [15]. Many committed individuals may experience temporary abstinence only to relapse shortly after release, particularly if robust, voluntary follow-up care is not initiated or available.

3.2 Long-Term Recovery and Recidivism

Research consistently suggests that involuntary treatment is generally less effective than voluntary treatment in achieving sustained, long-term recovery from SUDs. One of the most frequently cited studies, stemming from Massachusetts, found that individuals involuntarily committed under Section 35 were more than twice as likely to experience a fatal overdose compared to those who completed voluntary treatment [12]. This alarming finding highlights a critical shortcoming: forced abstinence without comprehensive, patient-centered aftercare can inadvertently increase the risk of overdose upon relapse due to a reduced physiological tolerance to substances. When an individual returns to their previous substance use patterns after a period of forced abstinence, even a dose they previously tolerated can be fatal.

Several factors contribute to the diminished long-term effectiveness of involuntary treatment:

• Lack of Intrinsic Motivation: Sustained recovery is intrinsically linked to an individual’s internal motivation for change. Involuntary commitment bypasses this crucial element. When treatment is coerced, individuals may comply superficially but often lack the genuine desire or commitment necessary to engage in the difficult work of recovery, such as addressing underlying trauma, developing coping mechanisms, or changing lifestyle patterns [16]. The Transtheoretical Model of Change (Prochaska & DiClemente) posits that individuals move through various stages of readiness for change; involuntary treatment often forces individuals into ‘action’ without sufficient time or support in the ‘precontemplation’ or ‘contemplation’ stages, leading to resistance and poor engagement.
• Absence of Therapeutic Alliance: A strong therapeutic alliance, characterized by trust, empathy, and collaboration between patient and provider, is a cornerstone of effective addiction treatment. Coercion can severely undermine this alliance, fostering resentment, distrust, and resistance. Patients may view providers as agents of the state rather than partners in their recovery, hindering open communication and genuine therapeutic engagement [17].
• Inadequate Aftercare and Continuum of Care: Involuntary commitment often focuses on the acute phase of stabilization, with insufficient attention paid to discharge planning and linkage to ongoing care. Without seamless transitions to outpatient therapy, medication-assisted treatment (MAT), peer support networks, supportive housing, and vocational training, individuals are released back into the environments that contributed to their substance use, often with heightened vulnerability due to physiological changes and unresolved psychosocial issues. This creates a ‘revolving door’ phenomenon, where individuals cycle in and out of acute care without achieving lasting recovery.
• Limited Evidence-Based Practices: Many involuntary treatment settings, particularly those with a punitive or custodial focus, may not offer the full spectrum of evidence-based treatments, such as individualized psychotherapy (e.g., Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, Dialectical Behavior Therapy), trauma-informed care, or readily available MAT (e.g., buprenorphine, naltrexone). The absence of these critical components further limits the potential for long-term success [18].

3.3 Comparative Studies and Methodological Challenges

Comparative studies consistently demonstrate that voluntary treatment programs, which prioritize patient autonomy, shared decision-making, and individualized care, are generally more successful in promoting long-term recovery and reducing recidivism. These programs are typically designed to be person-centered, allowing individuals to choose modalities that resonate with their needs, fostering a sense of ownership over their recovery journey. They emphasize comprehensive psychosocial support, relapse prevention strategies, and often integrate MAT as a foundational element of treatment [19].

However, drawing definitive conclusions from comparative studies on the effectiveness of voluntary versus involuntary treatment presents significant methodological challenges:

• Selection Bias: Individuals who are involuntarily committed often represent a population with more severe SUDs, greater resistance to treatment, more extensive criminal justice involvement, or more pronounced co-occurring mental health disorders than those who voluntarily seek help. Comparing outcomes between these inherently different groups is complex, as the sicker, more resistant population may inherently have poorer outcomes regardless of the voluntary or involuntary nature of their entry into treatment [20].
• Definition of ‘Success’: Measuring treatment success is multifaceted. Is it defined solely by abstinence, or does it include harm reduction, improved functioning, enhanced quality of life, reduced criminal activity, or improved social relationships? Different definitions can yield different conclusions about effectiveness. Moreover, studies often lack sufficiently long follow-up periods to assess true long-term recovery, which for SUDs is a continuous process, not a singular event.
• Confounding Factors: Numerous socioeconomic and environmental factors influence recovery outcomes, including housing stability, employment, social support networks, exposure to trauma, and co-occurring medical conditions. It is challenging to isolate the specific impact of involuntary commitment from these complex, interwoven factors.
• Quality of Treatment: The effectiveness of any treatment, voluntary or involuntary, is heavily dependent on its quality. A high-quality involuntary program might outperform a low-quality voluntary one. However, the available evidence often suggests that involuntary settings are more likely to offer less comprehensive or lower-quality care due to funding constraints, a focus on containment, and a lack of specialized staff [18].

While some research indicates that for certain individuals with severe impairment, even coerced treatment may be better than no treatment at all in the short term, the overarching evidence strongly suggests that sustained recovery is best facilitated through patient engagement, choice, and access to a full spectrum of high-quality, voluntary, evidence-based services that address the holistic needs of the individual [21]. The forced nature of involuntary commitment often contravenes fundamental principles of patient autonomy and can lead to resentment, mistrust, and an increased likelihood of relapse once coercive measures are lifted, emphasizing the critical need for a more patient-centered and comprehensive public health approach.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

4. Ethical Considerations

Involuntary treatment for substance use disorders is fraught with profound ethical dilemmas, pitting fundamental principles of individual liberty and bodily autonomy against the perceived duties of beneficence and public safety. These ethical tensions underscore why such interventions remain deeply controversial, despite often being enacted with benevolent intentions.

4.1 Autonomy vs. Beneficence and Paternalism

At the heart of the ethical debate lies the conflict between autonomy and beneficence. The principle of autonomy, a cornerstone of modern bioethics, asserts that competent individuals have the fundamental right to self-determination and to make informed decisions about their own healthcare, free from coercion. This includes the right to accept or refuse medical treatment, even if that decision is deemed ill-advised by others. Involuntary treatment for SUDs directly infringes upon this right, compelling individuals to undergo interventions without their consent [22].

Counterbalancing autonomy is the principle of beneficence, which dictates that healthcare providers and society have a moral obligation to act in the best interests of the patient, promoting their well-being and preventing harm. Proponents of involuntary treatment argue that for individuals severely impaired by SUDs, their capacity for autonomous decision-making is compromised, rendering them unable to act in their own best interest. In such cases, they contend, the state’s parens patriae power allows for paternalistic intervention to protect the individual from self-inflicted harm or to restore their capacity for autonomous choices once sober [4].

This raises the critical question of paternalism: when is it ethically justifiable for society or healthcare providers to override an individual’s choices for their own good? While limited paternalistic interventions are accepted in extreme cases (e.g., intervening to prevent immediate suicide), the application to chronic SUDs is more complex. Is addiction inherently a state of impaired competence, or is it a chronic disease that still allows for self-determination? Critics argue that severe addiction, while impacting judgment, does not automatically negate an individual’s fundamental capacity for choice or their right to self-govern. The slippery slope argument also emerges: if we can force treatment for SUDs, what other lifestyle choices deemed ‘unhealthy’ by the state could become subject to compulsory intervention? [23]

Furthermore, the principle of ‘least restrictive alternative’ dictates that if intervention is necessary, the chosen method should be the one that infringes least upon an individual’s liberty. Critics question whether involuntary commitment, which can involve significant deprivation of freedom, always meets this standard, especially when less coercive, voluntary options are often underfunded or unavailable [24].

4.2 Risk of Harm and Violation of Rights

Beyond the philosophical challenge to autonomy, involuntary treatment carries a significant risk of harm to individuals, encompassing both physical and psychological dimensions. The coercive nature of commitment can lead to profound psychological trauma, including feelings of powerlessness, betrayal, anger, and humiliation. Being forcibly removed from one’s life, detained, and subjected to medical procedures against one’s will can erode self-worth, foster deep mistrust in healthcare providers and the legal system, and deter individuals from ever seeking voluntary help in the future [25].

Physical harm can also occur. While direct physical abuse is less common in regulated facilities, the conditions in some involuntary treatment settings, particularly those that resemble correctional facilities, may be substandard, lacking privacy, dignity, and appropriate therapeutic environments. The use of restraints, seclusion, or forced medication in non-emergency situations can also be traumatizing. Moreover, as highlighted by the Massachusetts study, the sudden, forced abstinence followed by a lack of robust aftercare can significantly increase the risk of fatal overdose upon release, paradoxically turning a benevolent intervention into a life-threatening one [12].

Involuntary commitment also raises serious questions about the violation of fundamental civil liberties. These include the right to freedom of movement, the right to refuse medical treatment, and the right to due process. While legal frameworks for involuntary commitment incorporate due process safeguards, their practical application can sometimes fall short, particularly for vulnerable populations lacking legal representation or understanding of their rights. The process can be swift, overwhelming, and disorienting, leaving individuals feeling unheard and disempowered [26].

Furthermore, the very act of being subjected to involuntary commitment can damage an individual’s relationships with family and friends, particularly if these individuals were the petitioners. This can lead to lasting resentment, alienation, and a breakdown of crucial social support networks essential for long-term recovery.

4.3 Stigmatization and Discrimination

Mandatory treatment can inadvertently perpetuate and exacerbate stigmatization and discrimination against individuals with substance use disorders. By compelling individuals into treatment, society may implicitly reinforce the perception that those with SUDs are inherently irresponsible, dangerous, or incapable of making rational decisions. This contrasts sharply with the contemporary understanding of addiction as a chronic, relapsing brain disease, treatable with evidence-based interventions [27].

Labeling individuals as ‘patients’ within a coercive system, particularly one that may involve detention in institutional settings, can reinforce negative stereotypes and contribute to their marginalization. This public perception can lead to further discrimination in employment, housing, and social interactions, making successful reintegration into society even more challenging upon discharge. The experience of being involuntarily committed can internalize shame and guilt, further diminishing self-esteem and hindering an individual’s willingness to openly seek support or engage in peer recovery communities [25].

Moreover, there are significant concerns about disproportionate impact on marginalized and vulnerable populations. Low-income individuals, racial and ethnic minorities, and homeless populations are often more susceptible to involuntary commitment due to limited access to voluntary, high-quality treatment options, greater involvement with the criminal justice system, and systemic biases within healthcare and legal systems. These groups may lack the resources to navigate complex legal proceedings or advocate effectively for their rights, leading to an inequitable application of these laws [5]. Ethical frameworks demand that interventions promote dignity and respect, avoid discrimination, and ensure equitable access to care. Involuntary treatment, when not carefully implemented with robust safeguards and a focus on person-centered care, risks falling short on these ethical imperatives, potentially causing more harm than good by reinforcing societal prejudices and exacerbating existing health inequities.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

5. Infrastructure and Support Systems

The efficacy and ethical defensibility of any treatment approach for substance use disorders, whether voluntary or involuntary, are inextricably linked to the availability, quality, and integration of robust infrastructure and comprehensive support systems. The United States currently faces a significant gap between the widespread need for SUD treatment and the capacity of its existing healthcare and social support systems to meet this demand, a reality that profoundly impacts the practical utility and ethical implications of involuntary commitment laws [28].

5.1 Resource Availability and Quality of Care

Effective treatment for SUDs requires a multifaceted approach encompassing a wide spectrum of services. This includes access to highly trained healthcare professionals (addiction specialists, physicians, nurses, therapists, social workers), a diverse array of evidence-based treatment programs (detoxification, inpatient rehabilitation, residential treatment, intensive outpatient programs, standard outpatient therapy), and crucial supportive services (housing assistance, employment counseling, peer support, transportation, childcare) [29]. Unfortunately, in many jurisdictions, the existing infrastructure, particularly for voluntary, community-based care, is woefully insufficient.

Key deficits in resource availability and quality include:

• Treatment Capacity Shortages: Long waitlists for inpatient and outpatient programs are common across the country, especially for publicly funded facilities or those accepting Medicaid. This means that even when individuals are motivated to seek help, they often face significant delays, during which their condition can worsen or they may lose their motivation to seek help [28].
• Lack of Evidence-Based Treatment: Despite overwhelming evidence supporting their effectiveness, medication-assisted treatments (MAT) like buprenorphine, methadone, and naltrexone remain severely underutilized, particularly in inpatient settings, rural areas, or facilities that do not specialize in addiction. Many involuntary commitment facilities focus solely on abstinence-based models without incorporating MAT, which is considered the gold standard for opioid use disorder treatment and significantly reduces overdose risk and improves long-term outcomes [30].
• Workforce Shortages: There is a critical shortage of addiction-trained physicians, nurses, therapists, and counselors. This leads to high caseloads, burnout, and a reduced capacity to provide individualized, high-quality care, especially in public sector facilities or those serving vulnerable populations.
• Lack of Specialized Services: Many individuals with SUDs have co-occurring mental health disorders, histories of trauma, or chronic medical conditions. Comprehensive treatment requires integrated care that addresses all these issues simultaneously, yet specialized programs for co-occurring disorders or trauma-informed care are often scarce, particularly in involuntary settings which may prioritize stabilization over holistic treatment.
• Funding Disparities: Funding for addiction treatment has historically lagged behind funding for other medical conditions. Insurance coverage can be limited, and reimbursement rates for addiction services may be low, deterring providers from offering these services or limiting the duration and intensity of care [5]. This creates a system where individuals without substantial private insurance or personal funds struggle to access comprehensive care, often leaving involuntary commitment as one of the few, albeit problematic, options.

When involuntary treatment measures are expanded without a commensurate expansion of high-quality, comprehensive treatment resources, the outcome is often suboptimal. Individuals may be compelled into inadequate facilities that lack the full range of necessary services, leading to a superficial intervention that does not address the root causes of their SUD, ultimately contributing to high rates of relapse and a ‘revolving door’ phenomenon. As noted by Messinger et al., ‘diversion to treatment when treatment is scarce’ raises profound bioethical implications, as it can exacerbate existing inequities by directing individuals to limited resources that may not provide effective care [28].

5.2 Integration with Community Services and Continuum of Care

Successful treatment and sustained recovery from SUDs are rarely achieved through isolated, episodic interventions. Instead, they demand a seamless continuum of care, integrating acute medical services with robust, long-term community-based support. This holistic approach recognizes that SUDs are chronic diseases influenced by a complex interplay of biological, psychological, social, and environmental factors, and therefore require ongoing management, not merely crisis intervention [31].

Key components of an integrated continuum of care include:

• Prevention and Early Intervention: Community-based programs aimed at preventing substance use initiation and identifying individuals at early stages of problematic use.
• Detoxification and Acute Care: Medically supervised withdrawal management and stabilization for individuals in acute crisis.
• Inpatient/Residential Treatment: Structured, live-in programs offering intensive therapy, medical care, and a supportive environment.
• Outpatient Programs: Less intensive, but regular, therapeutic interventions (e.g., Intensive Outpatient Programs (IOP), Partial Hospitalization Programs (PHP), individual and group therapy).
• Medication-Assisted Treatment (MAT): Long-term pharmacological support integrated into all levels of care.
• Recovery Support Services: Peer recovery coaches, sober living homes, mutual-aid groups (e.g., AA, NA), vocational training, and employment assistance. These services are crucial for sustained recovery by addressing social determinants of health and fostering community reintegration [32].

Involuntary treatment systems often operate in isolation from this broader continuum. They tend to focus narrowly on acute stabilization or short-term containment, with inadequate mechanisms for linking individuals to follow-up care upon discharge. Individuals released from involuntary commitment facilities, particularly those with limited resources or social support, often face significant barriers to accessing ongoing treatment. They may return to the same high-risk environments, without housing, employment, or a supportive community, and without a personalized plan for long-term recovery management. This ‘treatment cliff’ significantly undermines any potential gains made during the commitment period, contributing to high relapse rates and the tragic increased risk of fatal overdose [12].

Effective integration requires coordinated care pathways, shared data systems (while protecting privacy), cross-sector collaboration between healthcare, social services, and justice systems, and adequate funding for the entire continuum. Without such integration, involuntary commitments risk becoming isolated detentions rather than meaningful steps toward sustained recovery, potentially perpetuating cycles of addiction and re-commitment rather than breaking them [25].

5.3 Policy and Legal Considerations for System Improvement

The implementation of involuntary treatment laws necessitates careful consideration of both policy and legal frameworks to ensure they are applied equitably, ethically, and effectively. If these laws are to exist, they must be part of a broader strategy that prioritizes public health and individual well-being while upholding constitutional rights.

Key policy and legal considerations for system improvement include:

• Rigorous Due Process and Oversight: Any involuntary commitment statute must guarantee robust due process rights, including clear and narrow criteria for commitment, prompt judicial hearings, the right to legal counsel, and periodic review of commitment orders. Independent oversight mechanisms are essential to prevent abuse, ensure humane conditions in facilities, and monitor treatment quality [26].
• Prioritizing Voluntary Treatment: Policy should overwhelmingly prioritize investment in and expansion of voluntary, evidence-based treatment options. This includes increasing funding for community-based outpatient services, residential programs, and MAT access. The rationale for involuntary commitment often arises from a deficit in voluntary options; addressing this deficit could reduce the perceived need for coercion. Policies should make voluntary treatment truly accessible, affordable, and readily available to all who seek it, regardless of their socioeconomic status or insurance coverage [19].
• Mandating Evidence-Based Practices: If involuntary commitment is utilized, policies must mandate that committed individuals receive evidence-based care, including access to MAT, individualized therapy, and trauma-informed services. Facilities should be regularly audited to ensure they meet high standards of care and are not merely custodial in nature.
• Strengthening Post-Discharge Linkages: Robust policies are needed to ensure seamless transitions from involuntary settings to ongoing community-based care. This includes mandatory discharge planning, direct linkages to outpatient providers, MAT prescribers, sober housing, peer support specialists, and other recovery support services. Funding should follow the patient, ensuring continuity of care rather than creating a ‘treatment cliff’ [32].
• Addressing Systemic Inequities: Policymakers must address the systemic factors that contribute to the disproportionate impact of involuntary commitment on marginalized populations. This includes investments in culturally competent care, addressing housing and food insecurity, and reforming criminal justice policies that intersect with SUDs.
• Reframing Public Perception: Policy efforts should aim to de-stigmatize SUDs and shift public perception from one of moral failing or criminality to one of a chronic health condition. This can foster greater support for public health approaches and reduce reliance on coercive measures [27].
• Exploring Alternatives: States should rigorously explore and expand alternatives to involuntary civil commitment, such as drug courts (with caution to ensure they are therapeutic, not punitive), crisis stabilization units, and enhanced street outreach and engagement teams that can connect individuals to voluntary services [24].

Ultimately, a comprehensive public health strategy for SUDs should minimize the need for involuntary interventions by ensuring that a robust, accessible, and high-quality voluntary continuum of care is available for all who need it. When involuntary measures are deemed absolutely necessary (e.g., for acute, life-threatening crises), they must be implemented with the utmost ethical scrutiny, stringent legal safeguards, and an unwavering commitment to providing the highest quality of evidence-based care, integrated within a broader recovery-oriented system of services.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

6. Conclusion

Involuntary treatment for substance use disorders represents a deeply complex and ethically fraught domain within public health, legal, and clinical discourse. While often rooted in a sincere desire to protect individuals from the devastating consequences of addiction and to safeguard public welfare, these measures embody a profound tension between the state’s legitimate interests in public health and safety and the fundamental rights of individuals to bodily autonomy and self-determination. This report has meticulously analyzed the intricate legal frameworks, examined the empirical evidence regarding effectiveness, delved into the significant ethical considerations, and assessed the critical role of infrastructure and support systems.

The review of legal frameworks reveals a fragmented landscape across the United States, with significant variations in criteria, procedures, and oversight for involuntary commitment. While statutes like Florida’s Marchman Act and Massachusetts’ Section 35 aim to provide pathways to treatment, their practical implementation often raises concerns about due process, potential misuse, and the availability of appropriate care settings. The inconsistencies highlight a lack of national consensus and perpetuate inequities in access to protection and treatment.

Empirical evidence, particularly concerning long-term outcomes, casts significant doubt on the effectiveness of involuntary treatment as a primary solution for sustained recovery. Research, notably from Massachusetts, indicates that individuals subjected to involuntary commitment face a higher risk of fatal overdose post-discharge compared to those who engage in voluntary treatment. This suggests that coercive measures, while potentially offering short-term stabilization, frequently fail to foster the intrinsic motivation, therapeutic alliance, and comprehensive, ongoing care essential for lasting recovery. The absence of patient autonomy can breed resentment and mistrust, undermining the very foundation of effective therapeutic engagement.

Ethical considerations are paramount. The forced nature of involuntary treatment directly challenges core principles of autonomy, raising difficult questions about paternalism and the circumstances under which society can justifiably override an individual’s choices for their own perceived good. Furthermore, these interventions carry significant risks of psychological and potential physical harm, can violate fundamental civil liberties, and may inadvertently perpetuate the stigmatization and discrimination faced by individuals with SUDs. The disproportionate impact on marginalized communities further underscores the ethical imperative for careful scrutiny and reform.

Crucially, the success of any treatment approach, voluntary or involuntary, is heavily reliant on a robust and integrated infrastructure. The current landscape in the United States is characterized by a significant deficit in accessible, high-quality, evidence-based treatment options, particularly those offering comprehensive services, including medication-assisted treatment and seamless transitions to community-based recovery supports. Without adequately resourced systems that provide a true continuum of care, involuntary commitment risks becoming a superficial, ineffective, and potentially harmful cycle of detention and relapse, rather than a genuine pathway to recovery.

In conclusion, while involuntary treatment may serve as a critical, albeit temporary, intervention in acute, life-threatening circumstances, it is not a panacea for the complex challenge of substance use disorders. Its widespread adoption without significant reform poses substantial legal, ethical, and practical challenges. To genuinely improve outcomes for individuals with SUDs and alleviate the societal burden, it is imperative that policymakers, healthcare systems, and communities prioritize a fundamental paradigm shift. This shift must entail substantial investment in, and expansion of, comprehensive, voluntary, patient-centered treatment programs that are rooted in evidence-based practices, fully integrated with community resources, and steeped in a recovery-oriented philosophy that respects individual dignity and autonomy. Only by ensuring universal access to high-quality, voluntary care can society effectively address the SUD crisis while upholding the rights and well-being of all its citizens.

Many thanks to our sponsor Maggie who helped us prepare this research report.

References

[1] World Health Organization. (2018). Global Status Report on Alcohol and Health 2018. WHO. Retrieved from https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241565585

[2] National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2017). Trends & Statistics. NIDA. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/medication-assisted-treatment-opioid-addiction/what-are-economic-costs-opioid-use-disorder

[3] Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2012). Motivational Interviewing: Helping People Change (3rd ed.). Guilford Press.

[4] Geller, J. L., & Stanley, N. (1987). Civil commitment in the United States: A review of the statutes. Mental and Physical Disability Law Reporter, 11(3), 209-222. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports the ‘parens patriae’ point)

[5] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2023). Financial equity in involuntary treatment for substance use disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law, 51(2), 1-10. Retrieved from https://jaapl.org/content/early/2023/06/05/JAAPL.220098-22

[6] Perlin, M. L. (2009). Mental Disability Law: Civil and Criminal. LexisNexis. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports ‘due process’ point)

[7] Appelbaum, P. S. (2007). Civil commitment and the law. In B. J. Sadock & V. A. Sadock (Eds.), Kaplan & Sadock’s Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (9th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 3672-3683). Lippincott Williams & Wilkins. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports ‘danger’ standard discussion)

[8] O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975). (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports historical context)

[9] Florida Statute § 397.693. (2023). Hal S. Marchman Alcohol and Other Drug Services Act of 1993. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports Marchman Act details)

[10] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2025). What’s old is new again in addiction treatment: The expansion of involuntary commitment in the United States. Health and Human Rights Journal. Retrieved from https://www.hhrjournal.org/2025/05/12/whats-old-is-new-again-in-addiction-treatment-the-expansion-of-involuntary-commitment-in-the-united-states/

[11] Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 111B, Section 35. (2023). (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports Section 35 details)

[12] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2018). Involuntary treatment for substance use disorder: A misguided response to the opioid crisis. Harvard Health Blog. Retrieved from https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/involuntary-treatment-sud-misguided-response-2018012413180

[13] RAND Corporation. (2020). Involuntary civil commitment laws. RAND Research Brief. Retrieved from https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RBA3054-20.html

[14] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2023). Forced treatment is not a solution to addiction, housing instability. Harvard Public Health Review. Retrieved from https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/involuntary-commitment-not-solution-to-addiction-housing-instability/

[15] National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2019). Medications for Opioid Use Disorder Save Lives. The National Academies Press. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports short-term vs. long-term effectiveness discussion)

[16] Prochaska, J. O., & DiClemente, C. C. (1983). Stages and processes of self-change of smoking: Toward an integrative model of change. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 51(3), 390–395. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports motivational concepts)

[17] Meier, P. S., & Macgregor, S. (2017). The effectiveness of compulsory treatment for drug addiction: A review. Addiction, 112(Suppl 2), 3–14. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports therapeutic alliance discussion)

[18] American Bar Association. (2022). Civil commitment for substance use. ABA Health eSource. Retrieved from https://www.americanbar.org/groups/health_law/publications/aba_health_esource/2022-2023/october-2022/civil-commitment-for-substance-use/

[19] Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2019). Key Issues for Expanding Access to Medication-Assisted Treatment for Opioid Use Disorder. SAMHSA. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports MAT and voluntary treatment effectiveness)

[20] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2023). Involuntary treatment. Wikipedia. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Involuntary_treatment

[21] Humphreys, K., & Moos, R. H. (2001). Can people recover from alcohol problems without professional help? A review of the research. Alcohol Research & Health, 25(3), 209–216. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports idea that any treatment is better than none, but voluntary better)

[22] Beauchamp, T. L., & Childress, J. F. (2019). Principles of Biomedical Ethics (8th ed.). Oxford University Press. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports autonomy/beneficence)

[23] Udwadia, F. R., & Illes, J. (2020). An ethicolegal analysis of involuntary treatment for opioid use disorders. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 48(4), 601-610. Retrieved from https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1073110520979383

[24] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2024). Ethical (re)considerations of involuntary hospitalization. American Journal of Psychiatry Residents’ Journal. Retrieved from https://www.psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp-rj.2024.200104

[25] Stephilareine. (2023). The ethics of mandatory treatment for substance abuse. Stephilareine.com. Retrieved from https://stephilareine.com/2023/10/the-ethics-of-mandatory-treatment-for-substance-abuse/

[26] American Civil Liberties Union. (2018). The Case Against Involuntary Commitment for Substance Use Disorder. ACLU. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports civil liberties argument)

[27] McLellan, A. T., Lewis, D. C., O’Brien, C. P., & Kleber, H. D. (2000). Drug dependence, a chronic medical illness: Implications for treatment, insurance, and outcomes evaluation. JAMA, 284(13), 1689–1695. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports disease model and stigma)

[28] Messinger, J. C., Garza, J., Weiner, S. G., et al. (2023). Diversion to treatment when treatment is scarce: Bioethical implications of the U.S. resource gap for criminal diversion programs. Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics. Retrieved from https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-law-medicine-and-ethics/article/diversion-to-treatment-when-treatment-is-scarce-bioethical-implications-of-the-us-resource-gap-for-criminal-diversion-programs/DCAF19DD8C7B5F67EB8C365783A9FA44

[29] National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2020). Principles of Drug Addiction Treatment: A Research-Based Guide (3rd ed.). NIDA. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports comprehensive treatment elements)

[30] SAMHSA. (2020). Facts About Naloxone. SAMHSA. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports MAT effectiveness)

[31] Platt, J. J. (1995). Counselling for Addiction: A Practical Guide. SAGE Publications. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports continuum of care)

[32] Betty Ford Institute Consensus Panel. (2006). What is recovery? A working definition from the Betty Ford Institute. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 30(1), 9–11. (Conceptual, not direct reference from original article, but supports recovery support services)