International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp. 173–194, 2000 Copyright © 2000 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0160-2527/00 $–see front matter PII S0160-2527(99)00041-2 173 The British Columbia Review Panel Factors Influencing Decision-Making Isabel Grant,* James R. P. Ogloff,† and Kevin S. Douglas‡ Introduction In Canada, administrative tribunals exercise substantial authority in deciding the fate of individuals who have been civilly committed. 1 These tribunals make decisions regarding committed individuals who want to reject some aspect of their care, either a refusal to take medications or a desire to leave the hospital. In British Columbia, Review Panels deal exclusively with individuals seeking release whose physicians will not release them from hospital. The Panel’s task is to determine whether the conditions for involuntary detention continue to be met. When the Panel releases someone, it is by definition against medical advice. Review Panel members are sometimes criticized by hospital staff and in the media for interfering with “medical” decisions for which they have little expertise. In fact, however, the tribunals are legal, and not medical, decision- makers, whose role is to determine whether the statutory requirements for overriding an individual’s choices have been met. *Faculty of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. †SFU/UBC Program in Law and Forensic Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Colum- bia, Canada. ‡SFU/UBC Program in Law and Forensic Psychology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Colum- bia, Canada. This research was made possible in part by a grant awarded to the authors by the British Columbia Health Research Foundation. The authors are grateful to Mr. Allan Tuokko, Coordinating Chair of Review Panels, and Mrs. Vidya Sharma, the Office Manager of the Review Panel Office, for their support of this project and for their assistance. In addition, the authors thank Lindsey Jack, Tonia Nicholls, Sharon Agar, Darren Nicholls, and Wendy Houtmeyers for their assistance with this study. Address correspondence and reprint requests to James R. Ogloff, Program in Law and Forensic Psy- chology, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia, Canada ,V5A 1S6. 1 Mental Health Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 288; Mental Health Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988 c. M-10; Mental Health Act, S.Y.T. 1989–90, c. 28; Mental Health Act, S.A. 1988, c. M-13.1; Mental Health Act, R.S.N.W.T. 1988, c. M-10; Mental Health Act, S.S. 1984–85–86, c. M-13.1; c. M-13.1; Mental Health Act, R.S.M. 1987, c. M110; Mental Health Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. M-7; Mental Patients Protection Act, R.S.Q. 1977 c. P-41 (as amended); An Act to Amend the Mental Health Act, S.N.B. 1989, c. 23 (as amended); NS-Hospitals Act, R.S.N.S. 1989, c. 208; Mental Health Act, R.S.P.E.I. 1994, c. 39; Mental Health Act, R.S.N. 1990, c. M-9.