In Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307 (1982), the Supreme Court recognized that "persons who have been involuntarily committed are entitled to more considerate treatment and conditions of confinement than criminals whose conditions of confinement are designed to punish." 457 U.S. at 321-322. Although the involuntarily committed are not deprived of their constitutional rights, their rights are not absolute. See 457 U.S. at 319-320. The Court acknowledged that these rights might at times be infringed in order to serve other predominating governmental interests. To be lawful, the restriction on the involuntarily committed's constitutional rights must be reasonably related to legitimate therapeutic and institutional interests. See id. at 322. Therefore, when the Court determine the reasonableness of a substantive right infringement, the Court defer to the mental health professional's judgment regarding the appropriate treatment decision for the patient. See Youngberg, 457 U.S. at 322-23. "Liability may be imposed only when the decision by the professional is such a substantial departure from accepted professional judgment, practice, or standards as to demonstrate that the person responsible actually did not base the decision on such a judgment." Id.