治疗权是精神障碍者的宪法权利吗?——以Youngberg v.Romeo案为例

Is the Right to Treatment a Constitutional Right of Mental Disorders?:Taking Youngberg v.Romeo as an Example

获得适当治疗是精神障碍者在强制住院期间享有的基本权利之一。在美国,依据联邦宪法寻求救济是早期治疗权诉讼的重要路径,但联邦最高法院在Youngberg v.Romeo等案件中对宪法治疗权的回避,使得治疗权诉讼的依据转移至联邦法律和州法,而治疗权是否为宪法权利之争议也逐渐淡化。尽管我国宪法并未明确规定治疗权,但治疗权仍具有宪法上的依据,尤其是我国《残疾人保障法》和《精神卫生法》亦明确规定精神障碍者享有康复服务的权利,从而肯定治疗权是精神障碍者的法定权利之一。

The right tc treatment is generally viewed as the fundamental right of involuntarily hospitalize persons with mental disorders. In he United States, U.S. Constitution is one of the important bases of right to treatment. As the Supreme Court declired to decide whether a constitutional right of treatment exists in Youngberg v. Romeo, most of litigation were sued to the federal law and state law. As a result, the disputes of the question whether the right to treatment was a cons itutional right was gradually fade. Although Chinese Constitution does not specifically provide the right to treatment, tt ere is still Constitutional basis of the treatment rights. The Disabled People Protection Law and the Mental Health Law a so speCify that the mental disorders have the right to rehabilitation services, which affirms the right to treatment of mental disorders is one of their statutory rights.