Texas Governor Vetoes Bipartisan Mental Health Bill Because Scientologists told him to

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by iBlazed, Jul 16, 2015.

  1. iBlazed macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #1
    Does Texas miss Rick Perry yet?

    Link

     
  2. AustinIllini macrumors demi-god

    AustinIllini

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2011
    Location:
    Austin, TX
  3. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #3
    Any chance for a veto override on this?
     
  4. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #4
    Wow. In keeping with the theme, I wonder if Abbott sent James Holmes a sympathy card today...

    You know...from one crazy person to another.
     
  5. satcomer macrumors 603

    satcomer

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Location:
    The Finger Lakes Region
  6. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #6
    I am no fan of Abbott or the Church of Scientology but giving doctors the authority to immediately detain someone without due process and oversight by other governing bodies is very concerning. The potential for abuse is enormous. If someone represents such an immediate danger, the doctor should notify the police to start monitoring the individual. Then the doctor should start building a case enough to persuade others that their assessment is correct. One person's opinion should not be enough to lock someone up.
     
  7. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #7
    "the legislation would have allowed hospitals to retain patients for up to four hours, allowing law enforcement to arrive and evaluate the situation."
     
  8. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #8
    Did you read the OP?

    Intended to provide a window of protection for doctors who sometimes find themselves choosing between illegally holding mentally ill patients and letting them leave with the real possibility they might be a danger to themselves or the community, the legislation would have allowed hospitals to retain patients for up to four hours, allowing law enforcement to arrive and evaluate the situation.

    “This bill applies to a very small group of patients — those who voluntarily seek services at a hospital or emergency department, decide to leave the facility, but the physician has determined he or she poses a potential imminent danger to self or others. This is a high bar. Very few patients will meet it,” said a letter jointly signed by Texas Medical Association President Tom Garcia and Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians President Daniel Pearson.
     
  9. sodapop1 Suspended

    sodapop1

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2014
    #9
    Yes but I did not catch the part about 4 hours. :)
     
  10. Praxis91 macrumors regular

    Praxis91

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
  11. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #11
    I highly doubt the Supreme Court would agree with you. Florida has been doing it since 1971 with the Baker Act. Many other states do it too. In Florida they can detain you for up to 72 hours.
     
  12. Thomas Veil macrumors 68020

    Thomas Veil

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Location:
    OBJECTIVE reality
    #12
    Say...

    You don't suppose Gov. Abbott has an upcoming doctor's appointment, do you? ;)
     
  13. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #13
    If someone wants to leave, let them leave and notify authorities.

    I have an aversion to kidnapping.
     
  14. APlotdevice macrumors 68040

    APlotdevice

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2011
    #14
    Where are the authorities supposed to go when the patient doesn't supply an address? The whole point is to ensure the authorities don't lose people who are a danger to themselves or others.
     
  15. Technarchy, Jul 17, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 17, 2015

    Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #15
    That's the job of the authorities to deal with. Detaining people without due process and a legal paper trail that's a mile long should not happen.

    How the hell are cops supposed to evaluate the situation exactly? What would they charge the person with that legally makes it okay for a hospital to keep holding a person without the involvement of the courts?

    If the person insists they want to leave you want the cops to shoot them? Or just arrest them for "disturbing the peace" because you are holding them against their will to begin with.

    Okay fine, start with pot smokers, after all only a crazy person would choose to fill their lungs with smoking. Especially if they have kids, that second hand smoke is a danger to them, and pot is illegal. They might have a car and get behind the wheel. Best to detain that person, violate Doctor patient privacy and numerous civil rights...all to make people "safe"...
     
  16. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #16
    One person's professional opinion. Not just opinion. Doctors should absolutely be able to detain people who are a risk to themselves or others if they can clinically justify it. Interim detention/treatment orders should absolutely be available if people are deemed clinically unable to make rational decisions (i.e. in the case of psychosis, intoxication etc). The litmus is that people people should be free to make stupid decisions, not erroneous ones because they are mentally ill. Detain on mental health grounds, review by a psychiatrist as soon as possible for further assessment. Works well and perfectly in line with duty of care.
     
  17. Technarchy macrumors 604

    Technarchy

    Joined:
    May 21, 2012
    #17
    Professional...?

    Since when did you move to the USA and become a lawyer specializing in civil rights and constitutional law, and have a proven track record of arguing cases before SCOTUS?

    If that is not the profession behind the "professional opinion" what you have to say has no more weight than that of a full time dog catcher.

    You're arguing for detainment without the slightest bit of due process or legal defense. Nooo, no red flags to worry about there. What could go wrong...
     
  18. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #18
    Please read my post properly and in its entirety. You have gone off with a half-cocked strawman without reading past the first sentence. There are quite a few caveats I posted in there about justification on clinical grounds and with safe guards such as review by a third party psychiatrist as soon as possible.
     
  19. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #19
    Actually, according to O'Connor v Donaldson, it's perfectly constitutional.

    #justsayin
     
  20. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #20
    Which is an entirely reasonable stance which I am surprised anyone would disagree with. As long as here are third-party checks (such as psychiatry review) and that clinically this is done in a expedient manner it is the safest for (most importantly) the patient and secondly the general public. This is how most first world health systems function.

    I doubt there would be many individuals whom have experienced paranoid and/or psychotic episodes whom would thank the health system for letting them go without receiving the healthcare they need to get better.
     
  21. iBlazed thread starter macrumors 68000

    iBlazed

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2014
    Location:
    New Jersey, United States
    #21
    You'll always find someone who will oppose the most reasonable things just for the hell of it. The governor of Texas is one of those people.
     
  22. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #22
    You miss the larger point: Abbott is working to insure his reëlection, and taking genuinely crazy people off the streets would just cut too deeply into his constituency.
     
  23. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #23
    Stupid is as stupid does? Doctors would have to think twice on taking action against an individual unless they really had issues or might open themselves to lawsuits.
     
  24. tgara macrumors 6502a

    tgara

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Location:
    Somewhere in the Delta Quadrant
    #24
    I'm disappointed in you, iBlazed! You didn't use the most sensational and misleading link in your OP. You should have used this one:

    http://wonkette.com/591218/l-ron-hubbard-controlling-texas-now-from-beyond-earthly-grave

    Try to do better next time, OK? :D

    Well, the Governor is not opposing the legislation "just for the hell of it". Far from it. As I see it, this is a tough choice. On the one hand, we obviously do not want to discharge patients who can be a danger to themselves or others. But on the other hand, we should not detain patients just on a doctor's order if that patient can function in a reasonably normal manner lest we violate his individual liberty (that was the holding in the Donaldson case). Where to draw the line? The governor decided to draw the line a bit closer to the individual liberty side than to the detainment side. From his press release:

    I think Andy has the best solution, detain the patients that may have issues for a short period, but install appropriate checks and safeguards so as to minimize any violations of individual liberty.
     
  25. 63dot macrumors 603

    63dot

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2006
    Location:
    norcal
    #25
    If this is true, or even partially true on some facts, it's very sad.
     

Share This Page