I respectfully must differ with you. The case was concerned with certain individual rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution being violated by the State by administering antipsychotic medication to a criminal Defendant for the sole purpose of rendering the Defendant competent to stand trial, where such Defendant had previously been determined to be incompetent to stand trial.
The issue before the United States Supreme Court in Sell v. United States, 539 U.S. 166 (2003) was whether a Defendant’s cognitive liberty as guaranteed by the US Constitution is violated if antipsychotic medication is forcibly administered to a Defendant. And, specifically in Dr. Sell’s case, could a lower Court Order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant who had been determined to be incompetent to stand trial for the sole purpose of making them competent to stand trial,
The US Court of Appeals affirmed the US District Court which held that a lower Court could order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication to a criminal defendant.
The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that antipsychotic medication could not be forcibly administered to a criminal Defendant who was not dangerous to himself or others, for the sole purpose of rendering the Defendant mentally competent to stand trial for serious but nonviolent crimes.
The United States Supreme Court further held that stringent limits had to be imposed on the right of a lower court to order the forcible administration of antipsychotic medication Specifically, the court held that lower courts could do so only under limited circumstances in which specified criteria had been met. In the case of Charles Sell, since the lower court had failed to determine that all the appropriate criteria for court-ordered forcible treatment had been met, the order to forcibly medicate the defendant was reversed.
Applying the decision in Sell to your question relating to those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility, It would appear that if they are not a danger to themselves, or others, then they can refuse their medication ad a Court would not have the power to Order anyone to administer medication which the patient has refused.
You question the rights of personnel, it is very difficult, I would say Impossible to defeat an individual's rights when his claim to those rights is based on the United States Constitution
PLEASE BE KIND ENOUGH TO LEAVE POSITIVE FEEDBACK SO THAT I RECEIVE CREDIT FOR ASSISTING YOU,