{"id":292,"date":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","date_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=292"},"modified":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","modified_gmt":"2026-02-18T12:00:00","slug":"people-v-t-b-e085256-ect-less-onerous-alternatives-statutory-interpretation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/california.shuster.info\/?p=292","title":{"rendered":"People v. T.B. \u2014 ‘Less Onerous Alternatives’ to Court-Ordered ECT Means Medical Alternatives, Not Surrogate-Consent Procedures"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n
\n
Case<\/dt>\n
People v. T.B.<\/dd>\n
Court<\/dt>\n
4th District Court of Appeal, Division Two<\/dd>\n
Date Decided<\/dt>\n
2026-02-18<\/dd>\n
Docket No.<\/dt>\n
E085256<\/dd>\n
Status<\/dt>\n
Reported \/ Citable<\/dd>\n
Topics<\/dt>\n
Electroconvulsive Therapy, Penal Code sections 2670-2680, Informed Consent, Surrogate Decisionmaker, Welfare and Institutions Code section 5326.7<\/dd>\n<\/dl>\n<\/div>\n

Background<\/h2>\n

T.B. is serving a life sentence for a 2011 murder. She has been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder, bipolar type, with severe and persistent symptoms that have proven resistant to medication administered under an involuntary medication order. She has mostly been housed in an inpatient psychiatric treatment program rather than the general population. The acting warden of her prison petitioned for an order authorizing ECT under Penal Code sections 2670-2680.<\/p>\n

At the evidentiary hearing, the parties stipulated that T.B. lacks the capacity to give informed consent to ECT. The trial court granted the petition, authorizing ECT for the maximum statutory six-month period. T.B. appealed, raising a single statutory-interpretation issue.<\/p>\n

T.B.’s argument was that ‘no less onerous alternatives’ to ECT under section 2679(b) includes procedural alternatives \u2014 specifically, the surrogate-consent procedure under Welfare and Institutions Code section 5326.7. She contended that the possibility of obtaining surrogate consent rendered ‘nonconsensual ECT’ unnecessary.<\/p>\n

The Court’s Holding<\/h2>\n

The Court of Appeal affirmed. The court held that section 2679(b)’s ‘no less onerous alternatives’ requirement refers to medical alternatives to ECT, not procedural alternatives for obtaining consent. The text and structure of sections 2670-2680 govern the medical decision to administer ECT to incarcerated patients lacking capacity to consent; the question is whether other treatments could achieve the medical goal with less burden on the patient.<\/p>\n

The court rejected T.B.’s argument that Welfare and Institutions Code section 5326.7’s surrogate-consent procedure must first be exhausted. Section 5326.7 governs civil-commitment ECT decisions outside the prison context; it does not engraft an additional procedural requirement onto the prison-ECT statutes. The Legislature created a distinct prison-ECT framework with its own substantive and procedural protections (including the court-order requirement and the six-month duration limit), and that framework is complete on its own terms.<\/p>\n

Although the trial court’s specific order had expired during the appeal, the court reached the issue because it was capable of repetition yet evading review.<\/p>\n

Key Takeaways<\/h2>\n