|
|
Will the 8 New Bills from California Honor Our Due Process? by Tom Barresi
In my 35 years as a mental patient, I have come simply, (and unprofessionally), to classify the mentally ill into two main groups:
Both descriptions of these types of mental patients, as shown, are "fair game", for just about anyone to determine, (parents, care-providers, law enforcers, etc.), the commitment worthiness of an individual. All that varies, is the motivation , and psychiatric training, of the person, who is making the observation. If this procedure seems rather simple to you, a person of justice and fair-play, then you should be the admitted, mental patient, who goes through this, without benefit of Constitutional , due process, or any law at all! It has grown increasingly more apparent to me, that the question of Forced Hospitalization will continue to pop-up from time -to-time, in the California Legislature, as well as other States' Legislatures, until a full explanation of both: what it does, and what it doesn't do, is explained. Myself, having been "committed" or treated, in the following counties of California, between 1987 and 1992: Orange County, Alameda County, Contra Costa County, Fresno County, Kings County, San Luis Obispo County, and finally Butte County; I can assure you, Forced Hospitalizations don't do the following: honor California's State Laws, and U.S. Constitutional Law, or honor the patient's right to "due process": ( a legal process which requires that reasonable proceedings are taken to protect the individual, (mental patient) from undue deprivation). Deprivation for example, as being involuntarily hospitalized by over-zealous, family members, or friends; as written in Section 5150, of the Lanterman, Petris, Short Act. Deprivation of not being able to display "cognitive capacity", in accepting your own treatment regimen; in order to prove your "sanity", to whomever is questioning it. Instead, the criteria for commitment ,(in California and many other states), is loosely based on your: being "a threat to yourself or others, or gravely disabled". As a mental patient of some experience, I can sadly report, that I have been committed , 1) upon the phone call of a wife to my therapist, (Alameda Co. '89) 2) by being driven around Fresno, Ca. from hospital to hospital, by a tactless parent; until "taken in", ('90) and 3) diagnosed over the phone as "a threat to myself", and ordered to drive myself to an emergency room for processing and commitment, (Kings Co. '91). With such a lack of concern for the legal rights of the mentally ill in this country; is it any wonder that believing in our Constitutional Rights, and especially our right to due process, is the proper way to go, in protecting our well-being! Opinion by Tom Barresi Click here for NAMI Position Click here for CNMHC Position Note: Opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and are not necessarily endorsed by NAMI Santa Cruz County. |
|
Opinions expressed in this web site do not necessarily reflect the views of NAMI Santa Cruz County, NAMI California or any affiliated organizations. We attempt to present a balanced perspective on issues by presenting multiple viewpoints. Copyright 2005 National Alliance for the Mentally Ill Santa Cruz County, All Rights Reserved. FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available to advance understanding of ecological, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner. |
