states: “When the continued involuntary administration of [antipsychotic] medication is a clinical necessity, a clinical due process hearing should occur.” According to Green, the word “continued” implies an uninterrupted administration of medication from a previous emergency. Green’s interpretation is incorrect. The Policy sets forth two independent avenues for involuntary medication. A clinical emergency occurs when an inmate poses an imminent threat to himself or others, and immediate action is required. The Policy allows prison officials immediately to medicate the inmate, without a due process hearing (based on the opinion of a psychiatrist or a physician in conjunction with another mental health professional). See Hogan v. Carter, 85 F.3d 1113, 1117-18 (4th Cir.1996) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). According to Missouri’s Policy, once the
holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate  with antipsychotic drugs against his will under certain circumstances while not limiting treatment to those circumstances holding that prisoners possess a significant liberty interest in avoiding the unwanted administration of antipsychotic drugs under the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment and identifying procedures which comported with due process holding that prison officials failure to accommodate inmates meal requirements during ramadan violated his free exercise rights holding that the due process clause permits the state to treat a prison inmate who has a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will if the inmate is dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmates medical interest holding that harper allows prison officials to dispense with minimum due process requirements during emergencies in order to involuntarily administer antipsychotic drugs