A Doctor's Fight: More Forced

[Anonymous]

Wall St. Journal

February 1, 2006 Page A1

Strong Medicine

A Doctor's Fight: More Forced
Care For the Mentally Ill

Torrey's Push for State Laws Sparks
Growing Debate Over Rights of Patients

Mr. Hadd Goes Underground

By MARK FRITZ

Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Every other week, Jeff Demann drives to
a clinic in rural Michigan, drops his
pants and gets a shot of an
antipsychotic drug that he says makes
him sick.

"If I don't show up, the cops show up
at my door and I wind up in a mental
ward," says the unemployed 44-year-old,
who lives on disability in Holland, Mich.

Mr. Demann's routine reflects a
national trend toward forcing people
with psychotic tendencies to get
treatment -- even if they haven't
committed violent acts. Driving the
trend are E. Fuller Torrey, a
68-year-old maverick psychiatrist who
believes the laws help prevent crime,
and memorabilia mogul Ted Stanley, who
has contributed millions of dollars to
the cause.

Dr. Torrey keeps an online database
with hundreds of grisly anecdotes about
mentally ill people who killed the
innocent. They include a jobless
drifter who pushed an aspiring
screenwriter in front of a subway train
and a farmer who shot a 19-year-old
receptionist to death. Influenced by
such stories, Michigan, New York,
Florida and California are among the
states that have toughened their
mental-health treatment laws since
1998, when Dr. Torrey formed the
Treatment Advocacy Center to lobby for
forced care.

The laws have become the subject of a
heated debate among mental-health
specialists, with some seeing a threat
to civil rights. "There should be a
high standard before you take someone
else's liberty," says Tammy Seltzer,
senior staff attorney for the Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, a Florida
nonprofit group that has fought the
Treatment Advocacy Center in
statehouses nationwide. Others say the
connection between mental illness and
violence isn't as well-established as
Dr. Torrey's anecdotes imply.

Mary Zdanowicz, executive director of
Dr. Torrey's center, retorts that such
opponents "want to preserve a person's
right to be psychotic."

It has long been common for states to
compel people to undergo psychiatric
evaluation after they have committed
acts of violence. If mental illness is
confirmed, they are likely to end up in
the psychiatric ward of a prison or
hospital.

Dr. Torrey was a key adviser to the
National Alliance on Mental Illness
when it began lobbying in the early
1980s for laws that would permit states
to impose treatment on people even if
they hadn't done something violent. The
number of states to adopt such laws has
jumped from 25 in 1998 -- when Dr.
Torrey and Mr. Stanley created their
own, more aggressive organization -- to
42 currently. Those targeted by the laws
usually are people picked up for
behaving strangely in public,
threatening family members, or refusing
to take prescribed medication after
being released from a psychiatric ward.

The laws are enforced haphazardly,
sometimes because of inadequate funding
or opposition from mental-health
activists. Implementation varies not
just from state to state, but from
county to county and judge to judge.
Many mental-health departments already
are overburdened with existing patients
and have little interest in pushing
police to round up more people to throw
into the system.

It isn't clear whether the laws have
led to an increase in the number of
people receiving forced care. Roughly
250,000 people in 1997 who weren't
institutionalized or jailed were
forcibly evaluated, monitored and
sometimes medicated, according to
federal statistics. Federal health
officials have begun a six-month study
to update that figure.

California passed a forced-treatment
law in 2003 after Dr. Torrey's group
pushed for it but has yet to use it on
anyone. Researchers say only about
eight to 10 states frequently use their
laws. Still, it is clear that Dr.
Torrey's movement marks a shift in how
the U.S. treats the mentally ill.

Beginning in the 1950s, the emergence
of behavior-stabilizing medications
helped spur a 40-year movement to shut
down huge asylums and free their
inhabitants. Emptying institutions was
supposed to be accompanied by the
creation of community-based
mental-health programs, treatment
centers, and housing and job
opportunities.

But local programs didn't have the
money, political will or expertise to
handle the deluge. The result was a
flood of mentally ill people on the
streets and in jails.

In recent years, governments have spent
more on community-based programs and a
raft of new antipsychotic drugs have
come on the market. Still, many
mentally ill go without care, either
because there isn't a program to treat
them or because they don't want help.

Dr. Torrey, whose sister suffers from
schizophrenia, was working as a
psychiatrist at St. Elizabeth's
Hospital in Washington, D.C., in the
1970s when the district enacted one of
the earliest involuntary outpatient
programs. Before the law, patients were
discharged dozens of times with
medication, which they quickly threw
away, Dr. Torrey says. With the law, he
says, "we would have guys come in for an
injection."

The author of 15 books and hundreds of
papers, Dr. Torrey was an assistant to
the director for the National Institute
of Mental Health and worked at a
mental-health clinic for the homeless
for 15 years. He is well-known in
psychiatry for his iconoclastic views
on a range of subjects. He has
theorized that schizophrenia is an
infectious disease triggered by
environmental factors.

One of Dr. Torrey's books on
schizophrenia caught the eye of a
wealthy businessman, Ted Stanley, whose
son, Jonathan, became delusional during
college and later was diagnosed with
bipolar disease.

Jonathan Stanley says he accosted
people on the street and believed he
was being trailed by Naval
Intelligence. He says he was arrested
when he stood naked atop a milk crate
in a Manhattan diner, trying to avoid
the lethal radiation he thought was
bombarding him from a satellite dish
across the street.

The elder Mr. Stanley contacted Dr.
Torrey in 1989 and ultimately opened
his checkbook to create the Stanley
Medical Research Institute in Bethesda,
Md. "He said he'd like to help," Dr.
Torrey recalls. "He said: 'We thought
we would start with a million dollars
-- a year.' "

Mr. Stanley, 74, runs MBI Inc., a
Connecticut seller of collectible and
commemorative books, coins, figurines
and other memorabilia. Its units
include the Danbury Mint. Since the
1980s, Mr. Stanley says he has donated
nearly $300 million -- including about
$35 million in 2005 -- to Dr. Torrey's
efforts, the bulk of it for research at
universities and start-up drug companies.

Targeting State Laws

In 1998, Dr. Torrey and the Stanleys
decided to target state laws that they
believed had gone too far in
guaranteeing rights for the mentally
unstable. They founded the Treatment
Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va. Mr.
Stanley and his wife, Vada, support it
with about $600,000 a year. In many
states, the center and its allies try
to put a face on a proposed law and
link it to a grieving family.

Dr. Torrey says the laws are aimed at a
minority of mentally ill who refuse to
take medication. Some believe they
aren't sick at all. Others agree they
have problems but believe the downside
of taking drugs outweighs the benefit
because the drugs can have serious
mental and physical side effects. Dr.
Torrey says failing to control
psychotic tendencies can be dangerous.
"I catch heat for linking violence with
mental illness. This is about as
politically incorrect as you can get,"
he says at his office in Bethesda.

The center soon zeroed in on New York.
Some mental-health professionals had
been lobbying unsuccessfully for a
decade to enact a forced-treatment law.
Then came the death of Kendra Webdale, a
32-year-old receptionist and aspiring
screenwriter.

On Jan. 3, 1999, Andrew Goldstein, a
jobless college dropout, pushed Ms.
Webdale in front of a Manhattan subway
train. The 29-year-old Mr. Goldstein,
who had a history of schizophrenia and
violent assaults, blamed his illness
and failure to get medication. Amid a
public uproar, New York Attorney
General Eliot Spitzer contacted the
Treatment Advocacy Center for help in
drafting a response.

Less than a month later, Mr. Spitzer
announced his support for "Kendra's
Law." The law allowed the state to
force outpatient treatment on people if
they were judged a potential danger to
themselves or others. At a news
conference, the attorney general
introduced a man who had come to grips
with his illness and his denial of it,
received treatment and gone back to
school. He now was a lawyer for the
Treatment Advocacy Center.

"I am Jonathan Stanley and I'm one of
the people this law was designed to
help," the younger Mr. Stanley said.

Seven months after the slaying the New
York state legislature passed "Kendra's
Law," allocating $52 million to finance
it. In a nod to opponents, the law was
subject for renewal in five years.

From 1999 to 2004, more than 10,000
people were investigated for acting
strangely, most of them in New York
City, with nearly 4,000 forced into
outpatient treatment.

Sharp Differences

When New York's law was up for renewal
last year, there were sharp differences
over whether it was a success. A state
report said the law led to a drop in
homelessness and arrests among those
receiving forced treatment. John A.
Gresham of New York Lawyers for the
Public Interest says the law was
applied unfairly, with a
disproportionate number of
African-Americans forced into care.

As they have elsewhere, opponents said
the money would be better spent on
those who are seeking care, not
refusing it. New York state lawmakers
extended "Kendra's Law" for another
five years.

In Michigan, Dr. Torrey's group
enlisted the aid of the parents of
24-year-old Kevin Heisinger, a college
student beaten to death in 2000 at a
Kalamazoo bus station by a Vietnam
veteran with a history of
schizophrenia. A year later a proposed
"Kevin's Law" was unveiled.

In Florida, the group teamed with the
Seminole County sheriff after a plumber
who was diagnosed as mentally ill
wounded two deputies in 1998 and shot
another to death. They quickly won the
lobbying clout of the Florida Sheriff's
Association.

In California, a law backed by the
Treatment Advocacy Center passed the
Assembly in 2000 but was rejected by
the Senate. Then on Jan. 10, 2001, a
deranged catfish farmer went on a
rampage in a small Northern California
town, killing three people and igniting
public outrage. Backers reintroduced the
legislation as "Laura's Law," after
19-year-old Laura Wilcox, the youngest
of the victims.

"We added a face to this issue and we
may have been instrumental in getting
it passed," says Laura's father, Nick
Wilcox.

California lawmakers hired Rand Corp.
to study pre-emptive outpatient
treatment in other places. The research
group said there was little evidence the
idea worked, although the reasons
varied. In some cases laws weren't
enforced. Rand also said some
mental-health facilities saw the laws
mainly as a liability shield rather
than as a therapeutic tool. By signing
up a mentally ill person for forced
care after discharge, the facilities
could protect themselves against
lawsuits by anyone the ill person might
injure.

Ultimately, California in 2003 passed
"Laura's Law." But the nation's largest
state allocated no money and forbade
counties from shifting resources from
other mental-health programs. The law
has yet to be used. In 2004, California
voters approved a 1% tax on people with
incomes of at least $1 million to be
used for mental-health programs, and
Dr. Torrey's group wants to see some of
that go for Laura's Law.

Michigan and Florida experienced
similar battles. Their laws didn't go
into effect until last year. Florida
has only had about a dozen cases of
involuntary outpatient commitments,
says John Petrila, chairman of the
Department of Mental Health Law &
Policy at the Florida Mental Health
Institute.

Still, the laws are having an effect on
some people. Gabriel Hadd, a 26-year-old
unemployed musician from Saginaw, Mich.,
was diagnosed as schizophrenic. He says
he has been repeatedly forced to take
drugs he believes do more harm than
good.

Mr. Hadd spent part of the past year
hiding out in the home of a Colorado
woman who is part of an underground
network of mentally ill activists. The
program was set up in late 2004 by
MindFreedom International, an Oregon
organization of 10,000 mentally ill
people that opposes coerced drug
treatment.

Mr. Hadd says his mother falsely
accused him of threatening to commit a
violent crime. She couldn't be located
for comment. "They can accuse you of
all sorts of things," Mr. Hadd says. "I
was in a courtroom, drooling and
twitching from the drugs." He recently
slipped back in Michigan and says he is
trying to maintain a low profile.

T.J. Bucholz, a spokesman for
Michigan's Department of Community
Health, says data on the program's use
aren't available yet but anecdotally
counties and judges seem to be using it
sparingly. "The law has not been used
maybe as much as we anticipated," he
says.

Mr. Demann, the 44-year-old Holland,
Mich., man, says he has been in and out
of institutions since 1987. That is when
he was diagnosed as schizophrenic after
he broke up with his girlfriend and
accidentally overdosed on her
antianxiety pills, he says.

Branded as suicidal yet constantly
refusing medication, Mr. Demann says
mental-health authorities are forcing
him to take a drug, Risperdal, that he
says causes him to be moody, angry,
restless and depressed. The U.S. Food
and Drug Administration in 2004 found
that Risperdal and some other
antipsychotic drugs can increase the
incidence of diabetes. Mr. Demann
agrees he needs therapy but doesn't
want drugs.

"I don't believe in putting this stuff
into my body," Mr. Demann says. "It's
time for the system to let me go."

Write to Mark Fritz at
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB113876185080261746.html

[Antigen]

The number of states to adopt such laws has  jumped from 25 in 1998 -- when Dr.  Torrey and Mr. Stanley created their  own, more aggressive organization -- to  42 currently. Those targeted by the laws  usually are people picked up for  behaving strangely in public,  threatening family members, or refusing  to take prescribed medication after  being released from a psychiatric ward.

Forced treatment = Stalinist reeducation

Would you mind if I were to move this thread over to Public Sector Gulags and Thought Reform I know it hasn't got much traffic now, but I have a sense that will change.

I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there.
--Robert Frost, American poet

[Anonymous]

Well, this may be an issue that would spark
intellectual debate, but, I don't think
this forum is the place to expect success.

Sadly ...

Here, people have their opinions and obsession
and no much listening and debate.

The fact is that the mentally ill are slowly
being jailed.

Those that refuse or don't do well on meds
get into a no win situation.

Encouraged by the "there is no mental illness"
crowd they may be encouraged to not take meds.

Schizophrenia has for years had a 85% non-complaince to medication.

They also do the worst, sadly, since the first
medication came out in 1988 that eliminated catatonia, and enabled the remaining to get out of institutionalization, some back to work, most not, the 85% no med rate is brutal.

The alternative crowd provides no written, proven, alternatives, so it is pretty much worthless to the mentally ill. It is valuable to those that sell alternative meds, and those that are idealists, but worth nothing to those that are sick.

This forum recently discussed, or was it slammed Andrea Yates.

RN, mother, home school mom, isolated, used as a breeder, delevloped psychosis, skipped meds, killed kids = fry her. It could have been you, if circumstances where altered. What then:?

I think that sums up the potential for intelligent debate. It is sad, but true.

Meanwhile there is no solution for those unstable, stigmitized and basically shit upon to avoid going to jail.

Assertive Community Treatment, obviously no one would want, even the creators and advocates for the new laws (as the article states are not used too much) to toughen up involuntary outpatient treatment. But, as an alternative to jail, it is very attractive. Got any alternatives, then perhaps a different thread would be interesting.

Those that are sick basically get ignored when they tried to post here, so they will be shit upon also.

So, since Fornits has dwindled to a SIG, special interest group, I would say just let this post be what it is. Another well written Wall St. Journal article on a confusing, desperate topic. Where the only losers are the mentally ill, and those they come into contact with.

I wish Fornits could be more, but it is not.

[Deborah]

Great article. TTI advocates for Federal Laws/Regulations should consider 'adding a face' to the issue. Appears to be instrumental in getting these MH laws passed.

The questions, which kid's name to use?
The "Ian August law". Sounds good.
And the 'consequence' (treatment) for killing a kid in a program is that you get your nuts hacked off with a dull saw.
Bet they'd be finding ways to keep them safe, and fed, and all their medical needs met. No more of this, 'thought he was faking' crap.

[Anonymous]

Your solution is just criticism?

[Antigen]

Well, Fornits is not one person or one cohesive group. It's open [sigh] why is that so hard to understand? You seem to come here absolutely certain that you're perfectly correct about everything. Then when somone questions your holy doctrine, you cry foul and cast disparriaging characterizations of those who disagree.

How would you know whether Jeff Demann needs medication or if the one he's forced to get is helpful or worth the adverse effects or comepletely worthless?

Despite anyone's opinion, professional or not, as to what's not right w/ Jeff Demann, he's never hurt anyone. By our much vaunted Constitution, he hasn't forfeited his right to self determination. It could be anyone. Could be you.

I am not anti psyche or anti drug. Obviously, there is such a thing as insanity. But it's not all organic. Take Andrea Yates for example. I think she's a prime example of situational insanity. Drug her? By force? Never mind what the patient says or how it effects her, just do what the book says? I don't think so. I hope she does move from prison to some actual, quality care facility. But I think the odds are rather long. Prison medical care notoriously sucks. She may well be moving out of the frying pan and into the fire. It's just such a tragic story.

Look, there are many different causes and as many differnt helpful approaches to mental and emotional distress. Unless someone is actually harming nonconsenting others, no one has a right to force them to do any damned thing. By the same token, if your drug therapy is working well for you, by all means stick with it. I only wish you didn't have to pay so much to cover the regulatory costs of provision and that we all had more choices in the matter. But don't assume that what's good for you is good for everybody.

What if Andrea Yates had packed up the first 3 or 4 kids and hit the road years prior? In her case (and many like hers) I think a timely change of set and setting might have solved her problem. And her name would never have been splashed accross the headlines and we wouldn't be discussing her sad story.

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.
--John Adams, U.S. President

[Anonymous]

On 2006-02-02 07:43:00, Eudora wrote:

"Well, Fornits is not one person or one cohesive group. It's open [sigh] why is that so hard to understand?

Thanks for that clarification ...

You seem to come here absolutely certain that you're perfectly correct about everything. Then when somone questions your holy doctrine, you cry foul and cast disparriaging characterizations of those who disagree.

Nope, you have the wrong impression there.

Information & choices that is all.

It would be nice if information could be provided without being critical of other doctrines, wouldn't it?

How would you know whether Jeff Demann needs medication or if the one he's forced to get is helpful or worth the adverse effects or comepletely worthless?

Good point, in fact, I would imagine this is an unverified anectodal story. No one would know unless his medical records where examined to veryify the facts.

I find it odd, in simplistic response to a non-detailed account that he is suicidal, and then being assigned ACT.

There are many suicidal people in this country, I don't believe that meets the criteria, unless there was more severity to his case profile.

Despite anyone's opinion, professional or not, as to what's not right w/ Jeff Demann, he's never hurt anyone. By our much vaunted Constitution, he hasn't forfeited his right to self determination. It could be anyone. Could be you.

You are absolutely right, and hence the dilema here. This is the toughest of all tough issues.

Andrea Yates never hurt anyone until the murders correct. The lady at the Goleta post office apparently from early news reports never hurt anyone. She did exhibit being confrontational, and talking incoherently. So no problem for these two current examples. They where not rounded up and forced to do anything.

Was that good or bad?

There is no easy answer, ever, in this situation.

Every case of involuntary inpatient or outpatient treatment is heart breaking. No one want to do this, but what does one do when the disaster of mental illness strikes to the point of raising concern?

It wasn't a problem until the darn medications improved to the point that releasing the mentally ill from asylums became possible.

Now we have a relatively new situation, that the law needs to catch up on. Remember laws are made after the fact, not before.

Before, meds, both examples above would have been in state run insane asylums, now technology has advanced that people are free to do what they want in the community.

Great!

Unless they become a danger to themselves or others.

If only Andrea Yates, and the Goleta lady told someone prior to the murders, it would have made decision making a little easier.

As the article stated the involuntary treatment is used sparingly, so most likely they would have continued with their outpatient treatment, or refused it. Which is what may have happened in both cases.

So, the laws that people mis-interperate and hate so much are in place, and it doesn't stop many from committing a crime.

Saying that, and thinking while I am typing, what is the big deal. How many people does it really effect in the adult popuation?

Those that crossed the line and became violent and are jailed thus eliminating their chance of ACT have lost their rights period. How should you, or I feel about them.

Fry them as some individual often posts here.

Or just let the current laws be, and accept that there will be crimes, and so be it.

Either someone will commit a crime because they are not mentally ill and choose to, or they are mentally ill and their illness contributes to their decision making.

Should anyone care, should the laws and the medical community try to help.

Or just allow people to refuse treatment?

We have that now, and all agree that is best.

Until, there is a danger to self or others, then
this whole issue comes up again.

Damn, if these people would just not become a danger to themselves or others we wouldn't have a problem and we could discuss something more meaningful.

I am not anti psyche or anti drug. Obviously, there is such a thing as insanity. But it's not all organic. Take Andrea Yates for example. I think she's a prime example of situational insanity.

I understand your position, and the guess that Andrea Yates most likely has a situational psychosis.

BTW - I am reading your reply and typing, because I have to depart. If it is a disjointed, or poorly written response, then sorry about that. I am trying to be timely ...

Drug her? By force? Never mind what the patient says or how it effects her, just do what the book says? I don't think so. I hope she does move from prison to some actual, quality care facility. But I think the odds are rather long. Prison medical care notoriously sucks. She may well be moving out of the frying pan and into the fire. It's just such a tragic story.

Absolutely, I don't know the answer either. All these type cases are tragedies. Plus we have the benefit of hind site, knowing a crime was committed. This whole topic sucks, worse than prison health care. The problem is the problem is real. I wish it never existed.

Another perspective.

Is it better to force treatment on 10 isolated home school moms, who have assholes as husbands to avoid one Andrea Yates, or do as exactly what was done with her. Which is the norm throughout the country?

I don't know the answer here either, I am uncomfortable with force, just as I am horrified when choice results in tragedy. Normally the tragedy is a horribe life. In these legendary crime cases it is the crime. Either way, the problem is there is no hindsight to guide decision making.

I agree with the folks that posted hoping a new law would come about making the husband partially responsible, or something.

But, that is more goverment intervention and that blows too!

Perhaps there is no answers that will be satisfactory.

Except, these cases are going on all over the country today.

For instance, and obviously, the Goleta lady was just a disables person doing good/bad/awful until she got herself to her old apartment complex and job site and committed a spree murder.

Should something have been done before?

Could something have been done before?

Who knows?

Should we try and learn from each case and make improvements for the future?

My guess is yes, but the process is highly volitile and no one ever comes away happy, and
the real problem is it requires foresight and many may be treated impropertly, to save an unkown amount from tragedy.

I don't know?

Perhaps a totally lawless society is better and let the survival of the fittest law of nature take its course?

Look, there are many different causes and as many differnt helpful approaches to mental and emotional distress. Unless someone is actually harming nonconsenting others, no one has a right to force them to do any damned thing.

I agree.

The law is "harmful to others or self"

It looks like the law agrees also.

Now, there is another problem. People carry out the law, there may be abuses, and on and on it goes.

Remember the case of the crystal dealers in that persons neighborhood. It wasn't a mental situation, but should something have been done, or nothing, as was being done?

Same dilemma.

By the same token, if your drug therapy is working well for you, by all means stick with it. I only wish you didn't have to pay so much to cover the regulatory costs of provision and that we all had more choices in the matter.

I agree.

But don't assume that what's good for you is good for everybody.

I never assume that.
 

What if Andrea Yates had packed up the first 3 or 4 kids and hit the road years prior? In her case (and many like hers) I think a timely change of set and setting might have solved her problem.

I absolutely agree!

And her name would never have been splashed accross the headlines and we wouldn't be discussing her sad story.

Reality bites in this case!

The question before the human race is, whether the God of nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles.
--John Adams

Timely quote, with no answer ...[ This Message was edited by: Eudora on 2006-02-02 10:09 ]

[Anonymous]

Sorry about the mess that I made on
the formatting of my response.

[Antigen]

No problem. I didn't have time to read your response either, just skimmed as I was fixing formatting. I too have to "go". I'll be in this same chair, but my head will be all wrapped up in this website http://HelpAtAnyCost.com/ I look forward to taking my time w/ this discussion later on tonight.

BTW, the error in your formatting was that you left out the slash from the close quote. Using curly braces instead of square ones (so you can see it w/o peeking at the source) it's like this:

{quote}
Quoted Text.
{/quote}

But, really, the error is in my code. It's supposed to count start and end tags and, if they don't add up, to ignore them all. Just another li'll bug I should get around to squashing.

screening pre-school kids for anti-social behavior is about as useful as screening the Christian Coalition for sanctimonious behavior.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ned=us&ie=UTF-8&q=Sanho+Tree&btnmeta%3Dsearch%3Dsearch=Search+the+Web' target='_new'>Sanho Tree

[Antigen]

Well, this is not really a new dilema at all. Are you familiar w/ Blackstone's ratio?

War is God?s way of teaching Americans geography.

--Ambrose Bierce (died 1914)

[Anonymous]

On 2006-02-02 15:19:00, Eudora wrote:

"Well, this is not really a new dilema at all. Are you familiar w/ Blackstone's ratio?

I did not know the name of it, thank you,
I do learn alot from you.

Yes, that is what I was referring to.

There is no answer though, correct, it is whatever
the legislative branch decides is the law.

That is the same process, I believe, that is happening with this dilem

[Antigen]

Well, I don't see it as a huge dilemma. Unless and until a jury convicts someone or they, themselves, plead guilty, they don't forfeit their rights.

Hell, my dad would almost surely have qualified for some kind of forced treatment if they did that sort of thing years ago. He had crazy bumper stickers and foil on all the windows of his house. He used to rage and scream and throw things, but not at people. He was also an avid gun collector and vocal proponant of 2nd amendment rights. Oh, and did I mention he was a postman? It's true, I am the Postman's kid! Certainly, he would have been voted most likely to go postal.

But he never did. You just can't tell what someone is going to do in the future. Freedom means you have a right to be and to stay crazy as a bed bug, so long as you don't infringe on the rights of others. That's what the old dude fought for.

Redemption: Deliverance of sinners from the penalty of their sins through the murder of their deity against whom they sinned.
--Ambrose Bierce

[AtomicAnt]

Even if one were to agree (and I don't) that there should be forced treatment for those who have not broken any laws, the difficulty is in where to draw the lines.

I do not have enough faith in either psychiatry or politics to trust any governing body to draw the correct lines. This is just a ripe opening for abuse against the poor, minorities, etc.

Also, we are finding out the hard way that some of these miracle medications do indeed cause more harm than good, so to force people to take something when the results of taking it are not fully understood is akin to shooting off a gun blindfolded.

Once again, cliches are used to form public policy. One sympathetic victim and we throw logic and science out the window and make sweeping policy decisions that are not well conceived. It's the same logic that brought us the 'three strikes' policies that filled prisons and failed to reduce crime.

[Anonymous]

On 2006-02-02 20:49:00, AtomicAnt wrote:

"Even if one were to agree (and I don't) that there should be forced treatment for those who have not broken any laws, the difficulty is in where to draw the lines.

Postal killer acted irrational years before attack
6th person from mail facility dies; former neighbor confirmed as 7th victim

Long before former postal employee Jennifer Sanmarco went on a suicidal rampage inside a mail processing plant in Santa Barbara, killing six people there and a seventh elsewhere, acquaintances and others took note of her odd behavior, a spiral of bizarre acts that began at least two years ago.

A former plant worker said the attacker had made racist comments in the past, and at least six of the victims were minorities, but investigators have refused to discuss a motive in the slayings.

But interviews with officials and others in New Mexico, Sanmarco's home state, to which she returned in 2004 after she lost her job at the mail facility, paint a picture of an unpredictable woman.
Story continues below ? advertisement

?We weren?t sure what she was going to do next,? said Terri Gallegos, deputy clerk for the city of Milan, N.M., where Sanmarco applied for a business license in 2004 for a publication called ?The Racist Press? that she said she planned to launch. Another time she said she wanted to register a cat food business, Gallegos told the Associated Press.

Bizarre behavior
During one meeting, Gallegos said, Sanmarco carried on a conversation with herself ?like she was arguing with someone, but there was no one there.?

?It was obvious that she could have some mental problems,? Gallegos told MSNBC.com. ?It was in 2005 when we dealt with her more frequently. She would come in and just ask questions about area projects. Sometimes we weren?t sure what she was referring to. A lot of times she would storm in, blurt out something and walk out.?

?She would do things that people would witness, like parking on the side of the road and praying,? Gallegos told MSNBC.com. ?We?ve heard of her going through local Dumpsters. To this day we don?t know where she came from. She had no history on her, no family or friends, she was always by herself.?

In June, police in nearby Grants, N.M., talked to her after someone at a gas station called to complain of nudity, police Chief Marty Vigil said. Sanmarco was dressed when officers arrived.

Sanmarco's behavior turned violent on Monday night, when she returned to her old workplace, the sprawling Processing and Distribution Center in Santa Barbara, Calif. She drove through the gate behind another car and gained entry to the building by taking an employee?s identification badge at gunpoint.

That worker was not hurt, but Sanmarco fatally shot six postal employees before committing suicide in what is believed to be the deadliest workplace shooting by a woman.

?According to witnesses from the scene, she had a 9 mm pistol and reloaded at least once during her rampage,? Santa Barbara County Sheriff James Anderson said Tuesday.

Killer of former neighbor
Beverly Graham, 54, was found Tuesday, dead of a gunshot wound to the head, at a Santa Barbara condominium complex where Sanmarco lived up until a few years ago.

A neighbor of Graham?s reported hearing a gunshot Monday evening, before Sanmarco went to the mail-processing center.

?Evidence and circumstances of both crimes show distinct correlations between the two,? said Jeff Klapakis of the Santa Barbara County Sheriff?s Department, on Wednesday.

Workplace shootings almost always by men

Racial component to shootings?
Authorities said it was unclear whether Sanmarco targeted specific employees at the postal center, but U.S. Postal Inspector Randy DeGasperin said ?chances are? she knew the people she was shooting.

Former plant worker Jeff Tabala recalled that Sanmarco seemed particularly hostile to Asians while working for the Postal Service.

He said all of the dead at the facility were minorities: Three were black, one was Chinese-American, one was Hispanic and one was Filipino.

In 2003, Tabala said, he saw sheriff?s deputies pull Sanmarco out from under a mail-sorting machine and wheel her away in handcuffs on a mail cart after a disturbance.

She returned several months later, but ?people started coming to me and saying, ?She?s acting erratically,?? Tabala said. ?She was screaming. She was saying a lot of racist comments. It was pretty ugly.?

Sanmarco was escorted out of the building by management and never returned, Tabala said. ?She seemed to be having conversations and there wasn?t anyone around her. She?d be just jabbering away.? he said.

Beverly Graham had also noticed unusual behavior, her brother Les Graham Jr. told The Associated Press. He said his sister had complained about a woman who ?used to come out and rant and rave in front of her building.?
The Associated Press and MSNBC.com's Michael E. Ross contributed to this report.

[Anonymous]

All your comments are valid, important,
and "the postman's kid" funny.

I just re-read the article and I believe
the reason for the push for involuntary
treatment reform is because it was used
so little that the wish of the politician's
was to make the laws more usable.

So, in a way, the US did have a freedome until
you commit a crime, even though an illness
may be influencing thy actions, policy.

Some may be perfectly happy such as yourself
with that.

A mental person, their loved one's, and
mental health advocates probably have the
opinion that if treated they could stay
in society and not be jailed or hospitalized
or worse yet, condemned to Assisted Communtity
Treatment until such time they are removed from
the program - all in order to maintain freedom.

There belief is a mental person's life is valuable and should be helped to recover to the highest degree possible.

Other mental people would be pissed to take
medications, rejecting all help and have the
support of many advocates that state no involuntary treatment anytime, for anyreason
period. Crimes are unrelated.

Everyone, including the mental person, wants
to have a reasonable chance at not being a
victim of a crime.

Hmmm, now that I have said all that, it is too
bad you are not supreme ruler in the country you live in, if you where, you could make the laws.

Hence the political system we have ...

I guess this post turned out to be babble, but
let me try to recover here.

There are all types of opinions on this situation.
One law will not please everyone.

I have no answer to the dilema that I think is complicated, others see no dilema at all.

Blah, sorry I can't wrap this thought up to a coherent conclusion.

Over and out, for now.