Abstract
Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) is a controversial civil court program wherein a judge orders a person with severe mental illness to adhere to an outpatient treatment plan designed to improve treatment adherence, prevent relapse and dangerous deterioration. Several states, including California and New York, have recently promoted use of AOT to try to address high rates of homelessness among person with severe mental illness. Under AOT, clinicians treating these patients must balance the ethical principles of patient autonomy and beneficence, and employ AOT only when previous treatment failed as a result of treatment non-adherence. However, some critics of AOT argue that not only is it coercive and ineffective but that the court mandate to adhere to prescribed medications, usually antipsychotic medications, compels AOT recipients to take ineffective and even harmful medications. This article examines the assertion of these critics and reviews the evidence of antipsychotic effectiveness and potential harms in treating psychotic disorders under a civil court order.