"Evidence Informed"

Proponents of controversial Intervention X claim that X must be court ordered for the patient's own good, even though it undermines the patient's autonomy, and there are no risks to imminent safety of self or others; survivors of Intervention X claim it is traumatizing, harmful, and useless. Proponents of X have no empirical outcome studies on their side, but claim that because Intervention X incorporates some principles from evidence-based interventions A, B, and C, all critiques of it should be dismissed. (Think aversion therapy in A Clockwork Orange). What logical fallacy are proponents of X committing?

Essentially, parts of the whole are true, therefore the whole is true. Sounds like fallacy of composition .

 all critiques of it should be dismissed...

Sounds a tad hasty to me, but more opinion and weak argument than a fallacy.

Appeal to authority? If they're describing something as evidence-based, then they would appear to be invoking either science, government officials who supposedly conducted some sort of investigation, or possibly media rats with their polls and surveys.

If the "evidence" they speak of is faked, then there might also be another fallacy involved - or should we just call it a lie?

There's a whole mess of problems here.

Near the end there, you have a classic fallacy of composition. Just because Intervention X incorporates some principles, does not mean that Intervention X inherits the property of 'evidence informed'.

This is part of a broader appeal to authority, as the proponents clearly don't actually care about the evidence at all, and are just convoluting some means to override the autonomy and testimonies of the people opposed.

Since it seems pretty clear what this is actually about, we can safely say that they are factually incorrect, to boot.