P.

DISCUSSION

Appellant asserts that the court’s order that he be involuntarily medicated is vague and overbroad, because it does not specify the medications to be given, and does not state that the medications are necessary and appropriate for appellant’s treatment.

2 Individuals in custody may refuse to take antipsychotic drugs. This is inherent in the right to privacy, and is guaranteed by article I, section 1, of the California Constitution. (See Qawi, supra, 32 Cal.4th 1, 14.) However, the right of a person committed as an MDO “to refuse antipsychotic drugs is qualified.” (People v. Fisher (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1006, 1013.) The right to refuse antipsychotic drugs “may be overcome in nonemergency situations by a judicial determination either that the person is incompetent or that he or she is dangerous within the meaning of [Welfare and Institutions Code] section 5300: ‘[A]n MDO can be compelled to be treated with antipsychotic medication under the following nonemergency circumstances: (1) he is determined by a court to be incompetent to refuse medical treatment; (2) the MDO is determined by a court to be a danger to others within the meaning of Welfare and Institutions Code…