In all of my writing about the data on involuntary electroshock treatment requests filed to probate courts throughout the state of Connecticut, I’ve disciplined myself as best I can to resist writing about their data on involuntary drugging requests. Since logic would imply that the use of electroshock treatment against people’s will is most likely to be abolished prior to psychiatric drugs being used in the same manner will, I may have made the faulty error of not allowing my personal experiences with forced drugging in Connecticut mental health facilities (and others around the U.S.) to distract from the rational effort to effect change in our mental health system by focusing entirely on ending forced electroshock treatment.
Back on January 7, 2026, I wrote to the State of Connecticut Office of the Probate Court Administrator requesting data related to forced drugging requests filed in Connecticut and received a response roughly two months later. The letter they sent me, dated March 3, 2026, contains concrete evidence that their publicly published Biennial Reports (see “Court Activities” line item: “Authority to Consent to Psychiatric Medication Treatment” for comparison) are erroneous, at the least, in their presentation of data on forced drugging requests.
In a nutshell: their Biennial Reports only show the number of forced drugging requests received for individuals who are under a court-ordered conservatorship (under C.G.S. 17a-543(e)) while excluding the forced drugging requests for individuals who are not under a conservatorship (under C.G.S. 17a-543(f)).
Admittedly, all I’ve provided here is the evidence for a single year: 2022. Hopefully I have not minimized the consequence of this finding in any way by only requesting their data for 2022 when their Biennial Reports date back to 2012. Unfortunately, requesting only a single year’s data was simply the fastest way to prove the point, but please do write to them and ask them for the data going back to 2012 to verify for yourself that they’ve omitted us from every single Biennial Report they’ve published… and please feel free to send it over when you get it! If it helps to quell any doubts you may have, I was rushed into one of their bullshit legal proceedings for a forced drugging request myself in 2023 without being under any type of conservatorship (also in 2008, back before they published a Biennial Report).
I understand that such a revelation may be of lean significance to some given that the number of people affected by it directly is so small – in 2022, there were 400 requests on people who were under a court-ordered conservatorship compared to just 8 for people who were not – however, the truth matters for the benefit of all, no matter how insignificant the details may be to the few.