A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

Clinicians and DPSCS back medication-review committee for incarcerated patients; public defenders and advocates oppose (SB 196)

January 22, 2026 | Judicial Proceedings Committee, SENATE, SENATE, Committees, Legislative, Maryland


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

Clinicians and DPSCS back medication-review committee for incarcerated patients; public defenders and advocates oppose (SB 196)
Dr. Linda Beneske, director of mental health for the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services, and deputy director Dr. Bevin Murrells urged the committee to support Senate Bill 196, which would establish a medication-review committee within DPSCS to address incarcerated patients in licensed mental health infirmaries who refuse psychotropic medication and deteriorate clinically. Beneske said there are patients who "refuse all medical and psychiatric care" and described one patient who later suffered a near-fatal stroke and is now bedridden; she said the proposed process would include due-process safeguards such as administrative appeals and rights to counsel in some contexts.

Opposition testimony came from the Office of the Public Defender and forensic-mental-health advocates. Benjamin Charlton (Public Defender's Office) said the bill removes autonomy and self-determination from incarcerated individuals and risks treating psychiatric conditions outside hospital settings. Sanjeev Varghese and other public-defender attorneys described serious side effects of psychotropic medications and argued that hospitals provide a different standard of care (psychiatrists on-site 24/7) than correctional infirmaries. They urged the committee to issue an unfavorable report.

Committee members expressed concern about due-process protections in nonemergency situations and asked whether counsel would be available for administrative hearings; opponents said the bill does not provide counsel as Health-General 10708 does for hospital patients and that the bill's lay adviser appears to work for DPSCS, creating a potential conflict of interest. Supporters and opponents indicated they will continue discussions and provide follow-up information.

View the Full Meeting & All Its Details

This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.

Watch full, unedited meeting videos
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
Permanent access to expanding government content
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee