Sell has been
found to be sane by the courts, but the 8th
Circuit has ruled that drugging this maverick
dentist will help him to assist in his defense.
The TV camera is fixed on a
hot, cast-iron frying pan. "This is your brain,"
says the narrator. An egg is cracked and dropped,
splattering into the pan. "This is your brain on
drugs," the commercial concludes, with a close-up
of the egg burning and shriveling in popping oil.
The implication: drugs fry your brain; they alter
your thought patterns. It is a simple message
about illegal-drug use directed toward the youth
of America.
Earlier this month the 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals came up with a new
message directed at every American. In the case of
United States v. Charles Thomas Sell, the court
ruled that mind-altering drugs ? prescription
medications used to alter thought patterns ? may
be forced on any person charged with a crime who
exhibits unacceptable behavior. It held that it
doesn't matter if the detainee poses no danger to
himself or others, nor does it matter that the
person charged has yet to go to trial for an
alleged crime. Worse still, say critics, the court
neither limited the quantity or type of drugs to
be administered nor foreclosed even the use of
experimental drugs.
With the help of
government-appointed psychiatrists and
psychologists, federal prosecutors argued that
Charles Sell, a St. Louis dentist accused of
Medicaid fraud, suffers from persecutory
"delusional disorder." True, he had been vocal
about alleged government conspiracies at Waco,
Texas, in Bosnia and in mishandling HIV, but the
government was careful to base its demand that he
be drugged solely on the "seriousness of the fraud
charges."
In May 1997, Sell had been
charged in a federal complaint with making false
representations in connection with payments for
health-care services and committing Medicaid
fraud, mail fraud and money laundering. As a
result, he has been incarcerated variously in
jail, prison or hospitals for nearly
four-and-a-half years and has spent almost two
years of that time in solitary confinement. The
dissenting opinion in the 2-1 ruling allowing him
to be drugged against his will pointed out that,
had Sell been convicted and sentenced for the
alleged crimes, he already would have served a
year longer than the maximum sentence of 33 to 41
months.
The law of the land supports the
premise that the accused are innocent until proven
guilty. Sell has been found sane by the courts and
poses no threat to himself or others. But the 8th
U.S. Circuit Court has ruled that drugging this
maverick dentist will help him to assist in his
defense. Specifically, the court found:
"We agree that the evidence does not support
a finding that Sell posed a danger to himself or
others."
"We conclude that, subject to the
limitations outlined below, the government may
forcibly administer antipsychotic medication for
the sole purpose of rendering a pretrial
detainee competent to stand trial without
violating the accuser's due-process
rights."
"The court found that involuntary medication
is the only way for the government to achieve
its interest in fairly trying Sell and found
that the medication is medically appropriate for
him."
"We find that the medical evidence presented
indicated a reasonable probability that Sell
will fairly be able to participate in his trial.
As a result, we believe that the effects of the
medication on Sell's competency and demeanor may
properly be considered once the medication is
administered."
Andrew Schlafly,
general counsel for the Association of American
Physicians and Surgeons Inc. (AAPS), a respected
medical association dedicated to defending the
patient-physician relationship and the ethical
principles embodied in the Hippocratic oath, has
filed an amicus curiae brief opposing the ruling.
Schlafly tells Insight that "Dr. Sell is being
drugged because they [the government] want to try
him in a drugged state. The government claims the
drugs will help him to aid in his own defense, but
the real offense here is the government charging
him with a nonviolent crime, giving him a
psychiatric evaluation and then forcibly drugging
him."
Schlafly says, "The government is
seizing power in a lot of areas right now to force
drugs on citizens. The fact is it is unprecedented
to allow prosecutors to drug peaceful defendants
presumed to be innocent. The government can't
force citizens to pledge allegiance to the flag,
but now forcibly can medicate them with
mind-altering drugs. It's a shocking and inhumane
decision."
Kathryn Serkes is a spokeswoman
for the AAPS. "This is such a high-profile case,
and so egregious," says Serkes, "that AAPS decided
it couldn't just sit on the sidelines. Put
yourself in Dr. Sell's position. His office was
stormed, he was thrown into solitary confinement
and he has been treated horribly. If you had been
treated in a like manner you, too, might seem a
little paranoid at this point. They are accusing
him of being on shaky mental ground, and I
probably would be, too, if I had been through what
he's been through in the last four
years."
What appears to be happening here,
continues Serkes, "is that they've got some kind
of delaying tactic going on, and if they drug him
they can string this out for years and keep him
from trial on competency issues as long as they
want. And they can keep him in jail while all this
is going on. Based on the research we've all seen,
people tend to end up wackier on these drugs than
when they walked in the door. And the
ramifications of this ruling are huge. If the
courts allow the government the power to drug the
accused ? nonviolent people ? every one of us is
in danger of forced drugging at the whim of a
prosecutor. If it can happen to Dr. Sell it can be
done to anyone."
David Oaks, director of
Support Coalition International, a Eugene, Ore.,
human-rights organization, doubts the court was
fully aware of the side effects of the drugs it
was authorizing when it ruled on the matter. "I
wonder," explains Oaks, "if the court would order
a lobotomy if it would make a difference in a
person's demeanor and ability to stand trial?"
According to Oaks, "The long-term use of these
drugs can cause structural brain damage that is
very similar to a lobotomy, can be seen under MRI
and CT scans and has been written up repeatedly in
mainstream medical papers. But this information, I
guess, isn't being introduced into these court
settings."
The human-rights activist says,
"This decision by the 8th Circuit really does
threaten everyone. It's ironic that the majority
of people in jail are there for some kind of
drug-related offense, and now here's the court
ordering people to submit to drugs against their
will. It's a contradiction. The public understands
that you can't just go and cut part of a person's
brain out to make them ready for trial, so why is
the court approving what equates to a chemical
lobotomy?"
There is concern among the
critics that the federal judiciary has been
propagandized to believe that the new neuroleptic
drugs offer a magic cure-all to clear the clouded
mind. The very idea offends Oaks, who says: "This
is a fantasy world that the court has bought into
? one convinced these drugs are a silver bullet
that will magically fix any alleged problem."
Whether there even is a "problem" with this
stiff-necked political maverick is in the eyes of
the beholder, the standard for all psychiatric
diagnosis. The AAPS received a thank-you letter
from Sell concerning the amicus brief filed on his
behalf. According to Schlafly, "You can see by
reading the letter that he's not crazy." The
letter says:
"Thank you very much for the
excellent amicus curiae brief that you filed in
support of me on behalf of the Association of
American Physicians and Surgeons to the 8th U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals. I just yesterday
received a copy of the brief, and the other
inmates that have read it so far are raving about
it. You have given us prisoners here at
Springfield new hope in our efforts against the
terrible practice of forced medication. Also, I
would like to assure you that I am not the
despicable monster that the government portrays
me. Thank you for your time and consideration in
this matter."
The U.S. attorney's office
handling the case did not return Insight's calls
requesting an interview to discuss these
issues.
Kelly Patricia O'Meara is an
investigative reporter for
Insight.
.gif)
.gif)
.gif)
.jpg)
.gif)
