Part 4 & 5: The Civil Commitment Process
A Closer Look: The Civil Commitment Process- The loss of rights, detriment to proper care, the invasion of privacy and the ongoing harm that can arise, and Forced Medication-Is it ever right? The propensity for harm for all involved.
Thank you for your attention to this very important manner. How we treat vulnerable people or people when they are vulnerable says a lot about a society as does what believe and practice regarding the civil liberties we are guaranteed by our constitution and Bill of Rights.
The Civil Commitment Process as practiced is frequently abusive and denies rights and this goes undetected. The people involved frequently have little accountability and very little emphasis in the process is placed on the emotional needs or rights of the patient, either by the hospital or by the county.
As practiced, the civil commitment process in MN lacks due process, commonly lacks independent assessment and judgement, and once initiated by a doctor, the rights of the patient are compromised and the therapeutic relationship needed for proper care is violated by the doctor. The needs of the patient for good consensual care are forgone and a spirit of condemnation and disparagement ensue.
Equally importantly, the process violates the patient’s privacy and those involved, the district attorney, examiner, referee and court appointed attorneys and even the doctors requesting the commitment have very little concern or regard for the patient and how harmful and abusive the process is. There is very little respect for the patient and his or her needs and she is treated like a criminal or someone who is abhorrent or somehow unfit by the referees and judges and most notably by the county personnel. This can be and in my case was very traumatizing and in addition, it hardens the people involved with the process. For the most part, the referees, attorneys, and county personal do not care about the person’s rights or health and it shows. They can have the misguided belief in some cases that they are superior in knowledge as to how to help the person or that it is their job to help the person or they may just want to win at all costs or they are billing hours.
Being escorted to court by law officers in a police car and being held in a holding room that is too brightly lit, frequently alone or with a stranger is traumatizing and damaging for someone that is already going through a personal crisis. It is also expensive.
The court operates much like a kangaroo court with administrative hearsay evidence and the doctors not being required to testify and offers being presented as an alternative to commitment yet still taking away rights and forcing treatment and invading privacy. The presumption is that the doctors know best, yet this is not the question at hand. The question is: Is the person a danger to self or others and whether or not the commitment which is extremely invasive is the least invasive method of treatment. In the state of Arizona, this must be addressed directly and substantiated and is the core issue of focus.
Little regard is given to truth or fact. In both XXX’s cases, the diagnosis given by the hospital to commence the process was based on a misstatement from my known to be intoxicated sibling. Speculation is rampant and the referee in the court proceedings didn’t ask XXXX any questions. He acted as if XXXX was incapable of answering questions, which was not the case. In MN you get a referee instead of a judge now. The district attorney vilified XXXX and speculated detrimentally and without founding on XXXX’s life in California and XXXX had to listen to him. His anger and lack of compassion really render him unqualified to serve in this role, and were it a criminal hearing, his conduct would have been brought into question.
This type of behavior is inevitable when the process is unfounded and the process as practiced is unfounded. There is also no accountability.
Over the past seven years XXXX has written the district attorney about the errors multiple times and have never received a response. XXXX has have court appointed attorneys ignore XXXX and be abusive to XXXX and XXXX’s request for a new attorney went unacknowledged.
To be clear, XXXX was never a danger to XXXX or others and XXXX was not an uncooperative patient, yet this happened. The court decision of commitment was made within twenty four hours of the hearing and it was a cut a paste of the documents submitted by the district attorney. The decision was appealed and for the appeal the district attorney changed their line of reasoning from my being suicidal to my being a threat to the police and hospital staff, despite the fact that neither party every accused me of being a threat. This is an abusive of power and it is against someone who is defenseless and vulnerable and it is routine.
XXXX is a working professional who values her privacy and now when you google XXXX’s name on the first page the verdict from the appeal shows up and states XXXX is mentally ill and that xxxx was a danger to self or others. It is untrue and it is damaging and medical records and health should be private.
The amount of damage, harm and psychological damage caused by this cannot be measured.
The problems start as soon as a doctor, frequently out of their own need, starts the process often times not paying any attention as to whether the criteria for the process is met.
The social workers for the county do not immediately assess whether or not the patient is a threat to themselves or others and the doctors are not required to specifically state how the threat is manifested. This leads to a rapid deterioration of factual based evidence or criteria. In addition, the social workers do not assess how the patient is incompliant or why exactly the courts need to be involved so as to assure that a commitment is the least restrictive means of treatment.
The court appointed attorneys are not present in these initial steps and the process gets set on a trajectory of condemnation and an abusive of administrative hearsay to unnecessarily and harmfully mischaracterize and belittle the life and circumstances of the person by taking things out of context and sensationalizing them to fit an agenda.
The use of psychologists as examiners is problematic as they are not MDs and do not know how to rule out medical conditions that might account for the circumstances. In addition, many of these examiners strive to appease the county and are not objective or even necessarily intellectually honest in their findings. One examiner went to great lengths to explain her diagnosis of XXXX to the referee when she had never met XXXX and XXXX had not sat for an exam.
The court appointed attorneys have by and large succumbed to the failed process and have little expectation of getting their client out of any consequences or deprivation of freedom. In contrast, a well-respected private attorney tends to intervene immediately and get the case dismissed at its incept. One court appointed attorney who handled XXXX’s appeal has been doing this for thirty years, essentially milking the system and does not have a favorable record and has poor interpersonal skills. The court appointed attorneys can and do create stress for their clients in that they frequently offer such little representation and courage and are so accustomed to the courts and its processes that they lack zeal and respect from the courts.
XXXX was court ordered medication without my input and the hospital requested that XXXX be put back on Aripiprazole, a drug whose damaging properties and withdrawal nearly cost XXXX XXXX’s life. In addition, XXXXX was forced to take a shot of risperidone which costs $2000 every two weeks, vs the pill format which costs about $1000 for a year’s supply and there was no reasonable justification given. The court asked no questions of the doctor.
I have been made aware that there are even cases of forced electroshock treatment going on in MN when the patient and his family are opposed. This warrants a closer look from the legislative and judicial branches. It is an abuse of power and an abuse of persons.
We have a system where there is very little if any accountability, no due process, and no impetus to care for the welfare of the patient and a lot of ensuing harm and damage and anger that arises from this. Minnesotans deserve better than this and in the words of Jesus Christ, “whatever you do onto the least of them you do onto me”. Let’s work and pray for change. Let’s dare to take a closer look and do our part to be a voice for those entrapped in this.
For a more thorough and legal presentation I will refer you to the attached Law Review Article prepared by Jim Gottstein, a Harvard educated lawyer and expert in psych rights. Input was solicited from some of the court appointed attorneys but none chose to participate. Also enclosed is a link to a video by Dr. Peter Goetzsche: Forced Psychiatric Treatment Must Be Abolished. It is long, but human lives, health and freedom are worth the investment of time.