Marina Affo did a great job with this story about Andrew. We are especially pleased with her incorporation of some of Andrew’s writings in the story. Writing a great story, and having it published, was one of Andrew’s greatest dreams. This article is a start. I’m working on a book which will include legal analysis of system defects, and also Andrew’s perspective as one forced to live within that defective system.
SB 39, the Senate version of the expungement bill, passed out of committee. The House version passed out as well; so the bill will move forward. This is good news for nonviolent Wisconsinites saddled with life sentences for possession of small amounts of narcotic or other drugs. I’m referring to our prosecutors’ insistence on saddling people who struggle with addiction with misdemeanor and felony convictions for the crime of possessing drugs. If we recognize addiction as a disease, why do we make it a crime? The expungement bill won’t solve that problem; but at least addicts can do their time and be done. The way the law stands today, they are saddled with life sentences with collateral consequences that are wholly out of proportion to their offenses. The expungement bill would mean they still serve their sentences, but once they have done so their records can be cleared, so they have a shot at a fresh start.
We need to include the people who are being treated in our discussions of mental illness. Elyn Saks, an attorney and psychoanalyst, and also someone who has lived with schizophrenia her entire life, is a brilliant advocate for patients’ rights and elimination of inhumane treatment of the mentally ill. Her NYT best-selling book, The Center Cannot Hold, is a must read.
A federal court ruling will hold United Healthcare accountable for failing to provide coverage to a class of 50,000 people denied coverage for mental health-related claims. It’s rare for these giants to be challenged, so the opinion is a refreshing read.
Pennsylvania has now joined 46 other states that have adopted laws allowing “assisted outpatient treatment” (AOT) of people who are mentally ill but not dangerous to themselves or others. Rather, the standard is whether the court finds that a person is unlikely to survive safely in the community without supervision. We believe this standard is unconstitutionally vague. Further, while AOT is touted as being voluntary, the facts of how these cases are handled indicate otherwise. Certainly, that was true in Andrew’s case. See our blog post at http://andrewsvoice.org/involuntary-outpatient-commitment-whats-the-big-deal/
Kudos to Mental Health America @mhasheb https://www.mhasheboygan.org/for opposing this law and for articulating the very real dangers it poses to civil liberty:
People who are “coerced” into mental health treatment risk becoming alienated from support services, said Sue Walther, who heads the Mental Health Association of Pennsylvania.
“There are lots of studies that show this, about coercion, how forcing someone into a system they don’t want to be part of negatively impacts their willingness to go into it in the future,” Walther said.
The Mental Health Association was one of several mental health groups in Pennsylvania that opposed the passage of the law last fall.
Walther said the criteria for committing someone are too vague.
#MHA #mentalhealth #stopthemadness #VOICE
Since I began advocating for protecting civil liberty for the mentally ill, the comment I hear most often is this: “But what if we let them control their own treatment, and they go and shoot up a school?” Sadly, this is a widely-held misconception. The truth is that mentally ill people are far more likely to be the victims of violence than the perpetrators of it. As stated by one of the authors of the study, “Much of the limited research on gun violence and mental illness has focused on violence among individuals with severe mental illnesses or rates of mental illness among individuals arrested for violent crimes. What we found is that the link between mental illness and gun violence is not there.”
The term “involuntary civil commitment” covers more than just forced incarceration at the psychiatric ward of a hospital or mental institution. In substantially increasing numbers, Wisconsin residents have been subjected to outpatient involuntary commitments, which more often than not are extended year after year on little more than a rubber stamp, all at taxpayer expense.
On the surface, it may seem as though the outpatient involuntary commitment is only a minor intrusion on the rights of the “subject,” as the person is referred to in the applicable statute. After all, the individual is free to live and work in the community, subject only to the terms of the involuntary commitment order. Those terms typically require that the individual comply with any terms of treatment that might be imposed by the treating psychiatrist, including involuntary administration of psychotropic and other medications, most of which have debilitating and often irreversible side effects. Additionally, the standard involuntary commitment order requires the individual to abstain from non-prescribed drugs and alcohol, and includes a lifetime ban on possession of firearms. And the order gives the treating psychiatrist troubling authority to order arrest and incarceration of the “subject” if the doctor—without inconvenient limitations of due process of law—determines that the conditions of the order have been violated.
A psychiatrist in conversation with me once likened the involuntary outpatient commitment to “training wheels;” simply a “safety net” to assure that a person diagnosed with a mental illness would not stray from the rigors of prescribed treatment. Such a description reflects a lack of understanding of the very significant intrusion involuntary commitment represents to the civil liberties of the individual so restricted. It is difficult for a person accustomed to freedom—one who has always had the ability to go about his or her business unfettered—to appreciate the massive intrusion represented by involuntary commitment, be it inpatient or outpatient.
Imagine a scenario where one of us not subject to an involuntary commitment is driving to a doctor’s appointment. Our car stalls in traffic. We pick up our cell phone, dial the doctor’s office, and explain the situation to the receptionist. We apologize, and re-schedule our appointment. For Andrew, as the “subject” of an involuntary outpatient commitment, the situation is much different. His car stalls in traffic on the way to his appointment; he calls the only number he has been given for the doctor’s office; he listens to a pre-recorded message, which then goes to dial tone with no opportunity to speak to a person or leave a message. He deals with the stalled vehicle and goes home. Then, he waits for the inevitable … a squad car arrives at his house, lights flashing. Curious neighbors come to their porches and windows to see what is going on. The officers pound on the front door, in full view of the neighbors. Then, when Andrew emerges, he is hand-cuffed, thrown into the back of the squad car, and delivered to the lock-down psych ward, where he is shot up with medication and held for 72 hours, risking loss of his job, loss of his home, loss of his pets, and other significant consequences which are of no apparent concern to the County or its appointed doctors.
Here are Andrew’s words on the subject, taken from the transcript of his December 2, 2018 recommitment hearing:
“I feel [the commitment] is unnecessarily restrictive…You know, those appointments they said that I missed. I don’t feel that I got any type of proper notice to come and show up. I got arrested almost the day after the appointment [in] both cases. The cops showed up at my house—in front of my house and made me look bad in front of my neighbors and came and cuffed me and brought me to K-1. [Note: K-1 is a reference to the lock-down psychiatric unit at Aurora Memorial Hospital in Sheboygan, WI.] Somebody could have called me and asked me to come to K-1. I would have showed up, you know…[They] make it sound like it’s all really nice and good and helpful and everything, but it’s not really the same when you’re going through it on the other side. And, you know, I mean, I’m trying—I do my best to comply with all the rules and everything, but to me it seems like a never-ending process. Honestly, like, some aspects of it seem borderline unconstitutional.”
Andrew was right. He had a constitutional right to due process of law, which the current system denies to him and others similarly situated when doctors arbitrarily order “subjects” to be arrested and incarcerated for perceived minor violations of the terms of the commitment order. Further, he had a constitutional right to application of the “least restrictive alternative” in all aspects of his treatment. Clearly, picking up the phone to ask him to appear for a missed appointment is less restrictive than the heavy-handed arrest, complete with flashing lights, door-pounding, handcuffs and incarceration.
We can and must do better than this. #wecanandmustdobetter