pinksharkmark said:
Assume you're the judge on this case. What's your ruling and the argument supporting it? You need not necessarily cite past case law on the topic, but there must be some logic to your case -- emotionalism alone doesn't cut it.
This article doesn't give me enough information to really make a decision, since it doesn't define some terms. I'll go through paragraph by paragraph tho, tell ya my thoughts.
Quote:
ALBANY, New York (AP) -- The state's highest court on Tuesday upheld "Kendra's Law," which allows caseworkers, family members and even roommates to seek a court order to force a mentally ill patient to comply with treatment.
"comply with treatment" is the thing that I'd like to have cleared up. Since no psychiatrist or psychologist would ever assert that they are 100% correct and they acknowledge that one professional's opinion could differ from anothers opinion, I don't think that the state could say what is, objectively, THE best treatment for the person to comply to. If my state-appointed doctor wants me to take medicines that zonk me out and make me have a lethargic, stoned feeling all of the time, should I be compelled to do so? I'd say only if I'd been sentanced to the treatment as part of a court proceeding. If I had, for example, been sentanced to see a specific therapist and follow their treatment plan, then I would be compelled by the law to do so. However, that isn't what this law is going after. This law would, from what it says, allow anyone who knows you well to get a court order that you must follow the subjective opinion and treatment plan that your doctor outlines for you.
Quote:
Lawyers for another mental patient, identified only as K.L., argued the law, which took effect in 2000, is unconstitutional because it violated patients' due process protections. K.L., who suffers from a bipolar disorder, had a history of hospitalizations and refusal to take medication.
I think that KL has a point. Due process must be followed. If I think my therapist is a horses-ass,and I stop seeing him because of that and in conjunction I stop taking my medicine, why should the courtb e called upon to forceable make me? If I haven't been convicted of a crime yet, they shouldn't have that right. If I have been convicted, then this law isn't applicable, because the conviction and court order issued then would dictate treatment and adherence to treatment.
Quote:
Attorneys argued the treatment can't be forced unless the patient is mentally incapacitated. They also argued that it was unconstitutional to detain patients who refuse to take their medication for up to 72 hours without a hearing.
Incapacitated is again a relative term. Who is to decide? If taking my Zoloft made me friendlier and more happy around my family, but I disliked that feeling and stopped taking it and thus, was not as friendly, would they have a right to demand that I follow treatment? Would that show my "incapacitation"? The 72 hour thing I also have a problem with. Most states allow a policeman to put you in "confinment" (Read: Jail) for up to 72 hours for a mental review. Putting someone in jail for three days without cause to have a person paid by the government come in and give you a trite little 45 minute questionnaire is NOT proper medical procedure.
Quote:
n its 6-0 decision, written by Chief Judge Judith Kaye, the court said the law was an effort to enable mentally ill persons to lead more productive and satisfying lives, "while at the same time reducing the risk of violence."
Their is a huge difference between "enabling" them to, and compelling them to. Enabling them is opening a door to a therapists office, compelling them to is forcing them to go in and take whatever snake oil they are currently being paid by a pharmacutical company to push onto people.
If a person has been violent in the past, they should have been prosecuted or treated then. To come to a judge and request an order demanding treatment for a person citing past violent behvaior would be like asking them for a sentance against that person. You need to be PROVEN guilty before a punishment can be levelled against you. In the case of the mentally ill, I don't think that they should be, at the bequest of a parent/friend/roommade, forced to comply with a treatment plan. I'd rather have the very infrequent, and quite tragic, incident occuring where the lady was pushed under the train, occuring, rather than having every pissed off parent forcing their kids to take medicines that they don't want to.
Bottom line: IF their actions are so bad that they should be compelled to comply with treatment, they should be prosecuted and the judge should sentance them to such treatment. If they fail to comply with the court-ordered treatment, they are in violation of their probation. However, without this court-order or some sort of due process where the facts were shown before a disinterested party and a judgement was made, I don't agree with this. Again, I'd have to see MUCH MUCH more about the law before I could make this my final answer.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Bulk Substrate 
Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order
Phred 
Edit 
Reply 
1 2 3 all )
silversoul7
trendal
Anonymous
Psilocybeingzz
