With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The expert opinions and recommendations must be supported by a showing of the factual bases on which they are grounded. T.G. v. State, 7 S.W.3d 248, 252 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1999, no pet.) (citing Mezick v. State, 920 S.W.2d 427, 430 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ)). Texas courts have noted several relevant factors that may be considered in determining whether a patient who has been criminally violent while insane meets the criteria for court-ordered extended mental health services. A patient’s refusal to take medication is evidence that, as a whole, tends to confirm the likelihood of serious harm to the patient and others. Roland v. State, 989 S.W.2d 797, 802 (Tex.App.-Forth Worth 1999, no writ); see also Niswanger v. State, 875 S.W.2d 796, 801 (Tex.App.-Waco 1994, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). The original crime may also be considered as

A: holding that evidence that patient who had a history of not taking medication and who murdered husband during a period when she was off of her medication and delusional tends to confirm the likelihood of serious harm to patient or others
B: holding that inmates do not have the right to the medication of their choice
C: holding that a psychiatrist had no duty to detain a patient who killed himself and injured his wife because the patient was outside of the scope of the facilitys range of observation and control even when the psychiatrist agreed to treat the patient the patient had suicidal tendencies and the psychologist took the patient into custody but then later permitted him to leave
D: holding that sanction of removal for nursing home attendant who was found to have hit patient suffering from dementia should be reduced to penalty of sixmonth suspension because act of hitting patient was isolated instance in which patient was aggressor
A.