Final answer:
The statement that clients under involuntary commitment do not have the right to refuse treatment is not true. Their competence is presumed until adjudicated otherwise, and they maintain certain rights such as the right to refuse treatment unless declared incompetent via a legal hearing.
Step-by-step explanation:
Involuntary Commitment and Client Rights
Among the options provided, the statement that is not true about involuntary (or civil) commitment to a mental health facility is that Clients admitted under involuntary commitment are not considered competent and do not have the right to refuse treatment. This is because despite their commitment status, the competence of clients is presumed until legally declared otherwise. In cases like Rogers v. Okin, it is established that a committed patient’s competence to make treatment decisions is presumed unless there has been a legal determination of incompetency. Therefore, clients maintain certain rights such as the right to refuse treatment unless they have gone through a legal competency hearing and have been found incompetent. An involuntary commitment typically involves a court order based on the individual's need for psychiatric treatment, risk of harm to oneself or others, or the inability to self-care. Additionally, the duration of the commitment is determined by the individual's condition and is subject to periodic review.
It's also essential to differentiate the concept of competence in a civil commitment setting from criminal proceedings, where standards such as understanding the charges and evidence against oneself, as seen in Dusky v. United States, determines whether an individual is competent to stand trial.