Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Government Medicine Politics

Scientology Group Urged Veto of Mental Health Bill 265

Posted by samzenpus from the staying-clear-of-the-hospital dept.
An anonymous reader writes: According to records obtained by The Texas Tribune, Gov. Greg Abbott vetoed a bill that would have given doctors more power to detain mentally ill and potentially dangerous patients, after a Church of Scientology-backed group helped organize a campaign against it. "Medical staff should work closely with law enforcement to help protect mentally ill patients and the public," he said. "But just as law enforcement should not be asked to practice medicine, medical staff should not be asked to engage in law enforcement, especially when that means depriving a person of the liberty protected by the Constitution." The bill would have allowed doctors to put mentally ill patients on a four-hour hold if they were suspected of being a danger to themselves or others. The bill had the support of two of the nation's largest medical associations.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Scientology Group Urged Veto of Mental Health Bill More

Scientology Group Urged Veto of Mental Health Bill

Comments Filter:

  • Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score:4, Interesting)

    by guises ( 2423402 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @05:40AM (#50126703)
    It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.

    Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It's up to 4 hours for a raving lunatic to "cool down".

      • I'm sure "raving lunatic"s can already be detained, at the least for disturbing the peace.

        • Re:Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score:4, Insightful)

          by dave420 ( 699308 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @08:38AM (#50127189)
          They can only be detained by the police, and the police are fucking terrible at dealing with the mentally distraught. So you assume wrong.

          • So my point that a "raving lunatic" can be detained is wrong because the police can detain him.

            Thanks for the clarification.

            • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

              by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @09:44AM (#50127651)
              Comment removed based on user account deletion

              • Re:Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score:4, Interesting)

                by fyngyrz ( 762201 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @10:44AM (#50128275) Homepage Journal

                The only reasonable role of the medical community is to address those issues for which we give informed consent. If our consent is to be over-ridden, it is critical that the process is both formal and can be pushed back against because otherwise, the sequence of events is open to being entirely arbitrary.

                So while it can be entirely appropriate for a doctor to advise the legal system that so-and-so seems to be off their rails in their estimation, the power to decide if that's so, and to do something about it, and the liability for doing so wrongly, should remain within that same legal system.

                No doctor, plumber or priest should ever have formal power to restrain a citizen's liberty. It is a monumentally bad idea.

                Yes, it is true that the government doesn't do a great job -- legislation, police, courts -- they all have problems, many of them severe. The proper remediation of that is to improve the government at whatever level(s) it is failing to meet our requirements. Not to assign powers to constrain liberty to non-governmental authorities.

                If a person's behavior rises to the standard of actually causing harm, now we're talking about any person's right to defend themselves from same. But if you are simply exhibiting behavior others don't like or don't understand, but are not harming anyone in the process -- then we should keep our hands off you.

            • Doctors can't detain them. That's the point. Moron.

        • You mean like this person [thedailybeast.com] was detained for disturbing the peace?

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Jawnn ( 445279 )

        It's up to 4 hours for a raving lunatic to "cool down".

        Not sufficient. The widely employed standard period for the detention of the acutely mentally ill is there for a reason. Wild swings in behavior, mood, mentation are common in these people. Leave it to Texas to get the priorities for helping the mentally ill ass-backwards, yet again.

      • Or they could just call the cops...

      • Read the article, it's four hours so they can call the cops to evaluate the person. Wanna bet the police with side with the 'medical professionals' and just take you to the psychiatric hospital - can't be blamed for agreeing with a doctor, can they?

        This is a power that would be granted to all doctors (podiatrist, heart surgeon, dermatologist, urologist, etc.), not psychiatrists - they already have the ability to detain dangerous patients.

    • Agreed (Score:2, Funny)

      by amplesand ( 3864419 )
      Isn't it true that most psychiatrist and psychologist are self-healers, ie they are a bit odd to begin with?

      Psychiastrist and psychologist: "Aah, you don't seem to feel well. Aah. Locking you up. Yedi, Yoggo. Aah. Duggo. Jaaaammmaaa. Thetan. Xenu. Teegeeack. Sfgofgiaughaifh."

      Something along those lines? I understand then that scientologists don't want that to happen.

    • Re:Feels weird agreeing with scientologists (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:16AM (#50126795)

      Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.

      Is that so? So, if you present with symptoms typical for Ebola, you should be free to leave (and thus endanger a potentially huge number of people) if you want?

      I vehemently disagree. Your (and my) right to freedom ends when you endanger others. Because, you know, others have rights too.

      • Strawman (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Nice try, but ebola -- which can be tested objectively -- isn't the issue. The issue is that doctors are being asked to subjectively evaluate people who may or may not be mentally ill, who may or may not have an inclination towards violence, and who may or may not have the will to actually exercise that inclination. In other words, they are being asked to perform "pre-crime" sentencing, which is in direct opposition to the principle of innocent before proven guilty.

        Shame on the unthinking herd that modded t

      • Hearing voices is different than literally oozing a deadly disease out of every pore and orafice on your body.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:31AM (#50126821)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • Seriously? You shouldn't risk being detained if you're so delusional that you're a danger to either yourself or others? Have you seen the state of someone when they're sectioned? It's not something that happens on a whim y'know.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guises ( 2423402 )
        Right. It doesn't happen on whim, it requires a warrant. This bill would have removed that requirement.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dave420 ( 699308 )
          And how long does getting a warrant take? I guess you're fine with deranged people wandering around being a danger to themselves and others... Weird.

        • Re: (Score:3)

          by Megol ( 3135005 )

          In many countries this is already the state of things and abuses aren't common (I've never heard of one). In the US in contrast there have been a lot of reported abuses of forced containment of (allegedly) mentally ill people. Strange that...

          Oh, I am wrong BTW. This is about a 4 hour period intended to allow proper procedures according to the state laws, in most other countries it is about a period long enough to properly evaluate the patient - which is in the order of days.

    • It feels weird agreeing with scientologists, but you know how it goes with a broken clock.

      Correct 1 in 43200 instances? Or do you mean a 24 hour clock (1 in 86400 instances)? Either way it's an optimistic expectation of that cult.

      Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.

      If passed the bill won't mean a doctor would be committing you to an asylum (not locking you in the waiting room), or a cop (not putting you in a cell). A doctor or cop would be committing you to a psychiatrist at a psych ward or similar institution for assessment. Then you would be detained under existing guidelines (though, not for failure to comprehend or research -

    • Because you are a scientologist.

    • Doctors get an awful lot of trust, much of it deserved and most of it necessary, given what they do, but seeing a doctor shouldn't mean risking my freedom. Even temporarily.

      Before this law was considered, a medical doctor that suspects significant untreated mental issues could order a psych evaluation, and a professional psychiatrist would examine the patient and make a determination regarding the threat a patient presents to himself or others. This law would have made the psych evaluation optional, the doc

    • This is a bit of weasel words. Its like saying "NAMBLA supports party XYZ", which the often support left-wing causes under the mistaken belief that other 'sexual minorities' would support them.

      The fact that Scientology doesn't like a mental health bill doesn't mean that everyone opposed is supporting scientology. This tactic is called "weasel words", to paint a bad picture of the Bill's critics.

      The bill itself? It allows arbitrary dentenion. The potential for abuse is huge. Already a tactic used by the poli

  • I am certainly no friend of the scientology cult, but I can't say I disagree with them on this point. After this happens a few times many people who are mentally confused will stop going to a doctor at all in fear of being locked up against their will.

    • I don't think people who are mentally confused go to the doctor by their own will. They most likely were taken there by the police or other people.

    • Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:36AM (#50126827)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Megol ( 3135005 )

        Indeed it is to any rational person with some insight into the problem. However we are talking about Scientologists who aren't rational and have no insight - according to them psychiatrists are routinely raping and killing people and are (as a group) worse than the Nazis.

      • The police are already called in on a regular basis to deal with patients whose guardians (be that family or whatever) have lost control of them, and frequently this has deadly results as handling psychiatric patients isn't something law enforcement does well or are trained to do. Substituting medical professionals, and having a four hour limit to prevent abuse, seems a fairly big improvement on the status quo.

        Stop making so much sense. It's Friday.

    • Re:Can';t say I disagree (Score:4, Insightful)

      by obarthelemy ( 160321 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:59AM (#50126881)

      Scientology is not a cult, it's a business.

  • Anyone who professes a belief... (Score:3)

    by EzInKy ( 115248 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @05:42AM (#50126717)

    ...in Scientology should be held. Their beliefs defy all credulity.

  • Dangerous power (Score:5, Interesting)

    by abies ( 607076 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:00AM (#50126765)

    There is a knee-jerk reaction of always standing on the other side of whatever Scientology says, but you need to be very careful in case of mental instiutions.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    I don't see it that far fetched that US government could classify fanatical suicide terrorism as mental illness in 2025 let's say. And then you don't need Guantanamo anymore - there is enough torture-like devices in hospitals to make life uncomfortable for people.

    We have had very ugly case in Poland recently (and in theory, being part of EU, we are supposed to be 'first world' country). Some guy got cheated by mayor of small town, assaulted him in public and went for psychiatric observation. Chief doctor of the insitution was very good friend of the mayor... guy got diagnosed with mental illness, being dangerous and got locked away. He tried petitioning for cross-examination etc etc (he was ready to server small jail sentence for assault and then be able to go to civil court to get right for how he got cheated finacially by mayor), but all letters got stopped at hospital. They are allowed to do so, because some crazy people are writing conspiracy theory letters to police every day, so there is a law to stop 'aimless correspondence'. Here, chief doctor decided that all his appeals for crossexamination, freedom and accusing mayor of wrongdoings would upset authorities.
    Fast forward 7 years.
    Guy leaves hospital completely broken by heavy medication, homeless and to be honest, quite crazy now.

    Another case - some guy claims other guy threatened to kill him. No process and instead of few months in prison for verbal threats, 8 years in closed ward.

    (Opposite is also true. Guy drives car on pedestrian walk on purpose (there was no road nearby and he was driving for few km , hitting 23 people in process. Instead of going to jail, he got diagnosed as unstable, goes to hospital and can possibly go out after half year. He used to study psychiatrics and his father is very rich so...)

    There are so many protections and possibilities to appeal built into judical system, but at same time, we want to give unlimited power without possibility of appeal to some doctors.

    • "There is a knee-jerk reaction... " You can upgrade that to a whole-body jerk. Also, I think I barfed a little.

      • I believe that counts as a danger to yourself. Please have a seat in this room, while I make a completely unrelated phone call to the police station.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dave420 ( 699308 )
          And then you get sued for malpractice, as nothing he has said or done can lead you to assume that, and you lose your license.

    • Re:Dangerous power (Score:5, Insightful)

      by swb ( 14022 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @07:52AM (#50127051)

      I agree there can be abuse, but here's a counter example:

      My neighbors across the street were a well-educated couple in their early 50s. Your stereotypical liberal, white academics. They had a son in college. Mike was a university professor and Theresa was a writer and an editor for a book publisher. We hosted several neighbors for a New Year's Eve party, including this couple. We had known all of them for a few years.

      During the party, Theresa was unusually animated -- if I didn't know better, I'd thought she'd done a couple lines of coke. Fast forward a couple of months later, I see her pulling up to her house in a brand new hybrid sedan. I start talking to her and it's like, wow, Theresa, no more coke. She's, well, crazy animated. She's got a semi-paranoid story about how her husband left her. She's starting her own magazine. She's arranging a photo shoot in Nepal. She's just bought a $2000 recumbent bike. A $2000 set of downhill ski gear.

      A week later, I see her again. This time "I've been staying at the Grand Hotel [a pricey, boutique hotel downtown] because I need Internet access and Mike made it so I can't get it at home."

      A week after that, a really scary looking black guy is getting out of her car -- without her -- and is seen going in and out of her house, sometimes carrying stuff to load in the car. Her immediate next door neighbors try talking to the guy "Hey, how's Theresa?" and he's angry and threatens them. They call the cops, the cops detain the guy but they let him go after talking to Theresa on the phone "Yes, he's my boyfriend."

      Fast forward a few weeks later and we see her ex-husband and we get the story. Theresa is bipolar. She's went off her meds around New Year's Eve. She got so bad and refused any kind of treatment or to take her meds, yes, he does leave her and basically files for divorce to protect himself from her.

      By the time her sister -- working with lawyers -- is able to gain conservatorship of her, about a month later, after probably six weeks of trying, she's nearly bankrupt. When she and her husband divorced, their house had been recently remodeled and was owned free and clear. She stayed, mortgaged the place to cash him out and had blown through the $200k half of her equity plus another $50k in credit card debt. Fired from her job, the "magazine" a total fantasy. The black guy was literally some guy she met on the street outside the hotel.

      Her sister finally gets her committed on a short-term basis and they get her back on her meds. By this time, though, she's done. She files bankruptcy, sells the house short along with almost all her possessions to try to pay off some debt. She ends up in a studio apartment somewhere, working part-time at a book store.

      All of this happened in about six months. About 2 months into it, before the divorce is finalized, Mike had called her sister and said "Terry is out of control, we have to do something" but it was all futile. Had they been able to institutionalize her and stabilize her, she might still be living across the street with a manageable mortgage and some cash in the bank. But because it was so impossible, her life is basically over. Totally broke, divorced, career lost, friends alienated.

      • Theresa is bipolar. She's went off her meds around New Year's Eve. She got so bad and refused any kind of treatment or to take her meds,

        What did the sister do that the husband couldn't have done at the start? He surely knew his wife had this condition, but he did nothing except file for divorce?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by swb ( 14022 )

          They had been married for 20-odd years, I'm pretty sure he'd spent a fair amount of time, money and effort helping her manage her situation. This wasn't the first or only time it had happened, but was probably the worst.

          And in her situation when she stopped taking her meds, she goes off the rails and between her paranoia and crazy behavior he had to make a pretty difficult decision to either "stick with her" and have her ruin both their lives or finally decide enough was enough and divorce her just to save

        • Getting anyone committed or in a forced hold is almost impossible. You have to prove they are going to hurt someone physically. The woman ruined her life but I doubt she had one incident where she was deemed to be dangerous enough to warrant a hold and psychiatric evaluation. This is true even if you are married to someone.

          After 20 years of crazy the guy probably had enough. At some point even if you love the person the crazy gets to be more than you can handle and you have to put your own needs above the n

      • Problem is, you haven't told a story of the other side of it. You've just told a sad, sad story. The System didn't help anyone in your story, which would be the opposite of the stories to which you replied. There's no knowing that her life would have been improved by being dropped into the machine.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by swb ( 14022 )

          The thing is she had a history of bipolar behavior which was stabilized by medication. I don't know why she quit taking it. It could have been a conscious decision or could have been the byproduct of going out of town without it, not taking it for three days, deciding she didn't need it and then the mania sets in and she *won't* take it because she feels so great.

          I think a lot of people on meds for bipolar have this risk -- I think the onset of mania probably feels pretty darn good, filling them with ener

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dcw3 ( 649211 )

      I don't see it that far fetched that US government could classify fanatical suicide terrorism as mental illness in 2025 let's say. And then you don't need Guantanamo anymore - there is enough torture-like devices in hospitals to make life uncomfortable for people.

      Um, no. Trained interrogators don't get to work in hospitals, and doctors would be breaking their oath to do no harm.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by abies ( 607076 )

        Please read back to wikipedia article I have quoted about how it worked in Soviet Union.
        If a bit of shock theraphy would make you abandon suicidal tendencies, renounce crazy terrorist faith and open yourself to confess other people which might need immediate psychiatric help... I could easily imagine doctors who would believe that they are doing it for the good of 'patient' and that they are doing 'no harm'. And there would be enough who would not care at all.

        This is why I said 2025. Assuming that things go

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dcw3 ( 649211 )

          Okay, I understand your concern with the psych community. I have extremely little respect for that profession.

          I don't know what the right answer is, but I think what we're doing now isn't working. We have mentally ill, and alcoholic (my own brother-in-law) who we can do little about, walking the streets, driving, able to buy guns, etc. The law can apparently do little for them until they have actually committed a crime. I know my brother-in-law has had several accidents, and lost his licence previously,

    • "We have had very ugly case in Poland recently..."

      Just so you know: the problem in the USA is pretty much the exact opposite. There are practically no mental health care institutions anymore.

      http://www.nytimes.com/1984/10/30/science/how-release-of-mental-patients-began.html [nytimes.com]

      Instead, people with mental problems wind up in the criminal justice system and wind up in our massive prisons, locked up with violent offenders. At least this bill would give some kind of check-and-balance on the proceedings, with doctor

  • Yeah, sure, give them the credit. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:19AM (#50126801)
    When the same sort of legislation was being pushed in Massachusetts, I personally delivered a speech against it before the Joint Committee on Mental Health. I was there with an army of other mentally ill people, their friends, their loved ones, and even some of their doctors, standing against this dangerous breach of our civil rights.

    The speech is here [zetachannel.com], in the block-quoted portion, sandwiched in a more detailed discussion of the issue. Don't let anyone frame this as the agenda of some cult. I believe in psychiatry, I wouldn't be alive without it, but this legislation is abhorrent.

  • Texas... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    So if police believe you're a danger to yourself, they can shoot you all they want, but if you're doctor thinks you're a danger to yourself, there's nothing he/she can do. Yep, sounds like Texas. Disclosure: I'm a Texan.

    Also, good to know we're following the U.S. standard of pushing mental healthcare to where it belongs: privately operated county jails and state prisons.

  • Small wonder (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nospam007 ( 722110 ) * on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:43AM (#50126845)

    if everybody was mentally healthy, they wouldn't have any followers.

  • ... and fuck Scientology for being a tax shelter for rich wing-nuts.

    The LGBTQ community should go this route so they can have religious freedoms like marriage, tax-free property, sanctuaries, ordained Christian pastors ... the whole nine yards.

    But I digress ...

    Fuck Scientology.

  • More Than Nuts (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @06:56AM (#50126873)
    The mentally ill do need to be confined at times as do many alcoholics and drug addicts. We are losing millions of good people who could have been helped or cured because we can not break up the patterns of their illnesses.

  • This wouldn't be a scientology issue... (Score:3)

    by meglon ( 1001833 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @07:02AM (#50126887)
    .... if it wasn't for the fact that L Ron Hubbard was mentally ill, which is why his "religion"/money making machine/fraud is so set against psychiatrists.

    • Re:This wouldn't be a scientology issue... (Score:4, Funny)

      by bistromath007 ( 1253428 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @07:08AM (#50126903)
      ...No. It's because, being a person who built a religion from the ground up as a business, he correctly understood that, historically speaking, any religion's direct competition is the field of psychiatry. I mean, I'm not saying he wasn't bugfuck insane, but give credit where it's due.

      • Hubbard had been committed several times and by all non-scientology accounts he was pretty friggen crazy. In the end he even tried to get someone in scientology to build a device that he could use to kill himself because of his depression.

  • Mind-boggling (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ThatsNotPudding ( 1045640 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @07:35AM (#50126983)
    Jade Helm truther, Scientology puppet... it is staggering to realize that Rick Perry was _not_ the worst modern-era Texas governor.
  • In the Us isn't there the equivalent of the UK compulsorily "sectioning" of someone with mental illness if they're a danger to themselves or others?

    Is all attendance at secure mental units voluntary? What about One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest?

  • They [abc.net.au] had a protest outside a psych ward in Sydney - more recruiters than placard holders. At least it's easy to spot the placard holders.

  • In Canada, they've had the option of placing you on a 72 hour mental health assessment for years, though usually a decision is made after the first 24 hours as to whether to hold you for the 72 hours. If you are having serious difficulties, they can hold you for up to three weeks after the 72 hours, an involuntary commital.

    I went through the process, and it's a damned good thing they were able to hold me. They literally saved my life -- I was suicidal.

  • from confining people against their will?

  • The recent scandal at the American Psychological Association, with psychologists participating in the torture of US prisoners, is worth considering in regard to this story.

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-... [theguardian.com]

  • IMHO, This "church" should put their vast amounts of money where their mouth is and take all the mental cases in, house them, feed them, cloth them, and then show the world that they can cure them.

  • And a half dozen other groups (Score:3)

    by tomhath ( 637240 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @10:42AM (#50128253)
    I suspect the main effect of the veto is to save millions of dollars in legal costs challenging the constitutionality of the law before it was struck down by a judge. Besides, police can always hold someone on something vague like Disorderly Conduct if they want to.

  • I think a lot of people are thinking about the 1950s style of institutionalizing the mentally ill as being the norm now. It's not. Mentally ill people are pretty much left to fend for themselves, and there is an extremely high bar to putting someone in a mental hospital. States closed almost all of their hospitals in the 70s through the 90s, mostly because of budget problems. (Long term patients used to work as part of their rehab, and when it was ruled they couldn't work for free anymore the model collapse

  • Intended to fix what? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Friday July 17, 2015 @11:08AM (#50128571) Homepage Journal

    Maybe it's just because the Aurora, CO shooter was convicted this week, but I suspect people are looking for ways to prevent those types of tragedies, presuming there is no other way - there are plenty of ways to evaluate a person for psychological issues:

    A parent can submit their child for evaluation
    A friend or family member can ask the court to intervene
    A judge can order an evaluation as part of a criminal trial involving the person
    A school can petition for an evaluation

    The Gabby Agiffords was know to be suffering serious mental problems by friends, family, classmates, his school administration and law enforcement event - no one wanted to intervene.

    The Sandy Hook shooter had profound mental issues, but he mother tried to keep him 'out of the system' to protect her child from being stigmatized, she paid the ultimate price when her son killed her and stole her weapons.

    And so on - the real challenge is people don't want to get involved in other people's problems, don't want to cause problems for their child, sibling, friend, or classmate that is struggling with mental issues.

  • Yes because if history tells us anything it is that law enforcement officers are particularly good at dealing with violent mentally ill people.

    True, the mentally ill patient usually ends up teased/beaten/shot to death, but at least they didn't tread on their constitutional rights...

    That said, I'm not sure an actual law was needed. I'm pretty sure if anyone (doctors included) believe that someone is posing an immediate threat to others, they can take action to detain someone until authorities arrive.

    Now if t

Slashdot Top Deals

"It's a dog-eat-dog world out there, and I'm wearing Milkbone underware." -- Norm, from _Cheers_

Close