6:51pm July 23, 2014

➸ San Francisco passes law allowing forced treatment of mentally disabled

ukiahsheart:

sinidentidades:

San Francisco lawmakers approved a law allowing the forced treatment of mentally disabled patients under certain conditions, drawing swift criticism from patient advocacy groups who say the measure tramples civil rights.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which passes legislation for the California city and county, adopted by a vote of 9-2 a measure known as Laura’s Law.

If given final approval it would allow court-ordered outpatient treatment for people with chronic and severe mental disability deemed a risk to themselves or others or who have been jailed or hospitalized more than once in the prior three years, among other conditions.

San Francisco legislator Mark Farrell, who proposed the legislation to the board, said the program would help vulnerable people “and provide the families the support they deserve”.

Modeled after a similar involuntary treatment law passed in New York in 1999, California lawmakers passed Laura’s Law in 2002 after 19-year-old Laura Wilcox was shot and killed by a mentally disabled patient at a Nevada County behavioral health clinic where she was an intern.

The state law allows family members, police officers or mental health professionals to file petitions requesting the court-mandated treatment of a mentally ill person.

Individual counties can opt out. Laura’s Law has only been fully adopted by three California counties: Nevada, Orange, and Yolo. It is expected to receive final approval from supervisors this week and then be signed into law by San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee, who has expressed support for the program.

The law’s implementation has been slow and sparse due to the concerns about civil rights, resources and costs.

“This is the wrong direction for any community but especially a progressive community like San Francisco,” said Mental Health Association of San Francisco Executive Director Eduardo Vega.

“There’s no real doubt that this is a process that fosters stigma around mental illness,” Vega told Reuters after the vote.

The law requires city health officials to offer a mental health patient voluntary treatment before being forced into an involuntary outpatient program.

It also appoints a three-person panel to each case, which includes a forensic psychiatrist who would review the case to determine if a court-mandate is necessary.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. I can see both sides of the argument. One the one, questioning and taking away the facility of a mental ill person to make decisions for themselves is stripping that person away of his/her rights.

On the other, If someone with a mental illness refuses to get the help they need and is a danger to him/herself or others then there should be some sort of procedures put in place to make sure they get the help they need.

I remember being about sixteen and watching as my Aunt’s family decided to try and intervene on the behalf of my cousin. He accepted their intervention begrudgingly and sought out treatment for his mental illness. He hated my Aunt the whole time. Wouldn’t speak to her. But he got treatment.

I’m not sure they had much recourse had he not gone through with it and this law might have been their only recourse.

But don’t think I’m not aware of how this law might be abused. I see so many cases of neglect/abuse through my dashboard because of neuroatypicality/mental illness/disability and this law could just be another form of abuse if we’re not careful. I’m gonna be watchful.

No this law is NOT needed, as there are ALREADY (over abused FYI) procedures in place to put someone who is deemed “A Danger to themselves or others” involuntarily in the psych hospital. All it takes is someone calling the cops and the cops deciding, with or without basis, that their course of action should be to drop them at the psych ward. (There have been people dropped in by family this way when they weren’t a danger because of convenience, because of care giver stress, and because of property conflicts.) Some cops just automatically assume if they are on a psych call to take you in. It begins a 72 hour “psych hold” where you are unable to be discharged or check yourself out until a judge reviews your case. You no longer have control about your treatment or much of your life until the judge hears from one of those doctors enough to discharge you.

And FYI: Danger to themselves or others? Already an EXTREMELY broadly interpreted category. There are people who WERE NOT an actual danger to themselves who were just visibly mentally disabled who have been picked up on that phrasing because someone saw them alone muttering to themselves and decided they, the abled person, felt unsafe and called 911. There are people who confessed suicidal ideation (thoughts about suicide) who didn’t have any INTENT or actual DESIRE to act on any of the ideas to friends who, because of cultural messages about what to do in that case, called the cops to “check” on them- and their friend got put on a 72 hour psych observation hold.

I have lived my life in fear that someone would misinterpret my words or behaviors as “dangerous”- and let’s be frank, the way the media has treated people with Mental Health Disabilities, basically looking “crazy” in public can make some people feel threatened- and I would be picked up. I had about half my teen voluntary hospital stays been coerced because the threat of an involuntary stay where I would have less say about leaving and be taken less seriously by the doctors while I was in treatment.

Oh, and you protesting that it was a mistake? Can be listed as a psych symptom depending on what staff you get. You not meeting their ideas about what you should act like as a psych patient? You obviously are benefiting from the structured environment/medications. You not basically laying back and complying with what they say to do, regardless of if you have serious concerns? You obviously need to stay longer. And it isn’t your perspective or your write up of the situation that the judge looks at to let you go- it’s the case notes with the above “observations”. You best be praying you have compassionate staff who get that forced and coercive treatment isn’t as effective.

And all of these opportunities for misuse and abuse of the system? ARE UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS. These new standards are even worse.

I’ve lived under the old standards in California and only rarely was I committed as a “danger to self or others or gravely disabled” when I actually was any of the three. And don’t forget “gravely disabled” because that’s the third way you can get taken in. They could finagle anything you did into evidence that you were a danger to yourself, a danger to others, or gravely disabled. Anything. I’m serious. It’s really easy to get committed in California, it’s one reason I don’t live there anymore. I have been committed for walking down the street looking “disoriented” (i.e. how I look most of the time).