Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Would this be constitutional in the USA?
Topic Started: Jan 26 2006, 01:23 PM (308 Views)
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp


Doctors in all provinces should be able to force people who are mentally ill to get help in certain circumstances...

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Okay, but who pays the bill?
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
The issue is public safety.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Aqua Letifer
Member Avatar
ZOOOOOM!
Well I don't disagree with it, but I'm trying to work out the logistics.

Some mental institutions (and in this case, I’m thinking of a few I know for juveniles) are so swamped with patients that they have " expedited services": group therapy for an hour every day (which can be a real joke), and then one-on-one time with a therapist for an hour a week. After two months, they're let go.

It'd be great to get these people help (since a lot of the homeless have mental illness), but if the services aren't all that great due to overpopulated institutions then the system itself would also need some work.
I cite irreconcilable differences.
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
big al
Member Avatar
Bull-Carp
I'll be interested to see some authoritative responses in this thread. I believe it is possible, at least in Pennsylvania, to have a person committed to a mental institution against his will if he poses a threat to himself or others. I've heard concerns expressed about the opposite issue to that posed in the posted article; i.e., once committed, how does a person secure release? Any information I have is anecdotal and related to specific cases, so I'm curious to learn what the law actually says about this and how it varies state to state.

Big Al
Location: Western PA

"jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen."
-bachophile
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kathyk
Member Avatar
Pisa-Carp
Yes. Involuntary commitment is a pretty common practice. There has no be an opportunity for hearing before a judge, and there has to be clear and convincing evidence that the person is either a threat to himself or others.

As to forcing medication outside of an institution, I can't see why that would be unconstitutional, but I don't know how it would be enforced, aside from by a court appointed guardian who would have the authority to do so.

This is speaking from Maine law, but I think the laws in other states are fairly similar.
Blogging in Palestine: http://kksjournal.com/
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kenny
HOLY CARP!!!
Didn't Ronnie RayGun solve the problem of overcrowding of mental institutuions by just releasing all the patients to the streets?

I think we call them homeless people now.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
from CBC News Link
 
Ostopovich's sister believes all provincial governments should follow the example of Ontario and Saskatchewan, where psychiatrists can force patients to be medicated if they are ill to the point of not knowing what's in their best interests.


Big Al, that is the specific point. In those provinces some mentally ill out patients can be required by not only the presiding psychiatrist, but court order to take their medication under provinically appointed guardian or trusteeship, or face going into provincial detention without due process under criminal code statutes.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
sue
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Is this related to the ruling that ambulance personnel cannot force someone to come with them? There was an incident recently where a street person refused to get in an ambulance. He was, by all accounts, physically and mentally ill, in very bad shape (in a wheelchair as well), but they didn't take him because he said he didn't want to. He died later that night.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jolly
Member Avatar
Geaux Tigers!
kathyk
Jan 26 2006, 02:20 PM
Yes. Involuntary commitment is a pretty common practice. There has no be an opportunity for hearing before a judge, and there has to be clear and convincing evidence that the person is either a threat to himself or others.

As to forcing medication outside of an institution, I can't see why that would be unconstitutional, but I don't know how it would be enforced, aside from by a court appointed guardian who would have the authority to do so.

This is speaking from Maine law, but I think the laws in other states are fairly similar.

Random drug tests. Just like for illicit drugs, but for therapeutic ones.

Rarely, if ever used.
The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros
Online Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
AlbertaCrude
Bull-Carp
sue
Jan 26 2006, 02:37 PM
Is this related to the ruling that ambulance personnel cannot force someone to come with them?

No, I think this is separate.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Enjoy forums? Start your own community for free.
Learn More · Sign-up Now
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply