In article <33de3eaf.51...@snews.zippo.com>, inF...@super.zippo.com (Rev. Dennis Erlich) wrote:
>hart...@erols.com (Rebecca Hartong) wrote: >Rebecca: >>In involuntary commitment cases, the reference to danger to oneself >>generally means that the person is acutely suicidal.
> Ah. Thanks for being specific. It's obvious you have some >exposure to these issues. How have you become familiar with them?
My husband has bipolar disorder (is manic depressive.) I learned about involuntary commitment to be prepared should the day ever come when he might need that.
>>While Lisa McPherson's >>behavior was provocative, she apparently didn't strike the hospital people as >>being acutely suicidal, Denny.
> Apparently not. Perhaps "moderately suicidal" would describe her >behavior and state of mind? Couple that with the fact that she was >asking the wogs for help, and the results of the equation would move >into the negative.
Yep. The whole situation was terribly, terribly sad. Hospitals are in a tough position in these instances. I would imagine it's sort of like having to send a battered child back to the home where the hospital staff suspects the battering took place because they can't *prove* that it was the parents who beat the kid.
> [Denny! It's been a while since anyone called me that, but I'm >comfortable with it if you are. I should have asked before, but are >you ok with Becky? I meant it in the affectionate way.]
Ah.. actually, I do prefer Rebecca. I used "Denny" to tweak you for having called me "Becky." Since no offense was meant, none is taken.
>>There wasn't much the hospital could have done >>to hold her, particularly when a group of people identifying themselves as >>friends of the patient appeared at the hospital claiming they'd take care of >>her.
> I suppose not. Still it is a sad situation.
It sure is. There have been lots of mentally ill street people who have died terrible deaths because they didn't meet the criteria for involuntary confinement. I sometimes think the law has gone too far in deinstitutionalizing the mentally ill and making commitment so difficult. But-- on the other hand, I also have an appreciation for the civil rights issues involved.
(snip)
> I don't think being a scieno should have had anything to do with >it. But it did, I believe. If Lisa had just been a citizen, and the >scienos were not in the equation, I believe she would have been >treated differently and would be alive today.
I think you're probably right.
It's a tragedy no matter which way you look at it.
Peter McDermott <n...@petermc.demon.co.uk> wrote in article <B004012C96681C5...@petermc.demon.co.uk>...
> I don't think so. Poor decision making skills *aren't* the sole > prerogative of cultists. Either we apply these tests of irrationality > to everyone, or we apply them to no one. How is a cultist any different > to someone who has been poorly programmed by their parents? By their > peer group? OK, cults are more systematic about their programming, but > then the state is pretty systematic as well. Should we decide that all > those patriots who support their country during an irrational conflict > with other nations is also under the influence of mind control and > thus their thoughts are 'not their own'?
I think I agree with you, but . . .
Decision making skills weren't in question; anyone can be caught unaware of the path they are following - sometimes too late to make an easy change. As for the rest, you got my point. There IS no difference between the different forms of programming, other than the INTENT. Governments, advertisers, parents, and children regularly spew propaganda, half-truths, misleading statements, and outright lies hoping that it will improve their position. Cults simply take it one step further, building one mental block on top of another until the unwary victim can't see over the top. It is thus possible for someone to become a Scientoligist without ever making a clearcut decision to do so. It just happens. Someone may become a born-again Christian in the same manner, the only difference being that they probably won't die before having a chance to fully resolve their thoughts and feelings.
As for patriots, I honestly think some may be similarly unaware of the mental process that led them to risk their lives. There is an ethical distinction here, though, since the person in question is involved in an activity that some majority of the population also supports. Also, there is likely some tangible end-point goal, and involvement probably does not require a substantial shift in the persons values and morals. You could not say the same of cults.
>Sorry, Peter. I e-mailed you a copy of this already unintentionally. I'd >meant to just post it.
>In article <B004012B96681C5...@petermc.demon.co.uk>, n...@petermc.demon.co.uk >(Peter McDermott) wrote: >(snip, re Lisa McPherson's emergency room visit) >>So what are we saying here? That she *wasn't* presenting as an >>obvious danger to herself?
>That seems to be the case. But by "danger to herself" you understand that I'm >talking about it from the involuntary commitment standpoint, right? >My understanding is that generally, if a person denies suicidal ideations, >they wouldn't be considered a danger to themselves (to the degree that a >doctor would involuntarily commit them.) And, even in the event that Lisa M >*did* express an interest in suicide, the fact that these "friends" of hers >showed up at the hospital and assured the staff that they'd keep an eye on her >would usually have been enough to convince a doctor that involuntary >commitment wasn't necessary. This has been my experience, at least.
Here's an excerpt from one of the early Tampa Trib stories about the matter. It's at
The medical records, provided by McPherson's family, reveal she had a ``very minor'' car accident on Nov. 18, 1995. At the scene, McPherson took off her clothes, and paramedics took her to Morton Plant for evaluation. The records show she had ``no evidence of [an] acute medical problem or injury.''
But mentally, she was troubled.
``She stated she needed to talk,'' Lovett's [the ER MD's] report said. ``She took her clothes off to make people think she was crazy. She kept switching topics back and forth. ... The Scientologists arrived and told me that they did not want her to see a psychiatrist and that they would be able to handle her themselves.''
With her ``friends from the congregation'' at her bedside, McPherson spoke in a monotone, had a fixed stare through teary eyes and appeared forgetful or confused at times, according to a report by psychiatric nurse Joseph Price.
Asked about her ``bizarre behavior,'' McPherson told Price, ``I did it [took clothes off] for attention - I did not want to be arrested.''
``Patient states, `I want to go home [with] my friends from the congregation - I won't do anything to harm myself.' ''
Lovett's evaluation shows McPherson said she did not want to stay in the hospital, and, although ``we feel that she does have a psychiatric problem,'' doctors could not commit her under the state's Baker Act because she was not a danger to herself or others.
Lovett told her he thought she was capable of making a rational decision about leaving, and she signed herself out against medical advice.
>>From what I've read, it seems pretty apparent that she was >>psychotic at some point during her illness, although this may >>well have occurred later on down the road. Nevertheless, I'd >>have thought that anyone displaying signs of psychosis or >>schizophrenia who was refusing medical treatment could quite >>reasonably be regarded as a danger to themselves.
>Yes and no. Yes--in the sense that normal human beings out on the street >would see that person as being a danger to themselves. No--in the sense that >even that's not usually enough to force an involuntary commitment. (Think of >all the crazy people living on the streets. They're the best example around >of how difficult it is to hospitalize someone who doesn't want to be >hospitalized.)
On Tue, 29 Jul 1997 13:19:19 GMT, spe...@anon.com (Scott Perry) wrote: >Dear Diane, > It seems to me that you have done a good job of "cutting to >the quick" in the question of where the State should and should not >intervene. I wrote earlier that:
>> Unfortunately, when someone inflicts harm upon one's self, >>society seldom intervenes! In that case, which is what I think we are >>mostly talking about here, it seems that it is only when one inflicts >>such harm upon ones self that ONE'S SELF IS PLACED, UNDENIABLY IN >>PYHSICAL DANGER, and WHEN THERE IS A CONCERNED FAMILY MEMBER THERE TO >>BEG THE AUTHORITIES TO INTERVENE, that society is willing to regularly >>intervene in an individual's life.
> Please let me refine this thought, thanks to your insights....
>In the case of supposed adults, it seems to me that it is only when >one inflicts such harm upon ones self that one's self is placed >undeniable in physical danger, and when there is a concerned family >member there to beg the authorities to intervene and WHEN THE DANGER >INVOLVED IS NOT PART OF A CLEARLY PRE-DEFINED CLEARLY UNDERSTOOD >RELIGIOOUS PRACTICE THAT IS NOT MERELY A DEVICE INVENTED TO PROTECT A >SUPPOSED CHURCH FROM LEGAL PROSECUTION BY ELIMINATING POTENTIAL >WITNESSES.
>Diane, wouldn't you agree?
Scott, I can't agree or disagree with your statement unless you state it in an intelligible way. What are you trying to say?
Rebecca Hartong wrote: > >>What's the difference between a Scientologist[tm] refusing psychiatric > >>commitment and a Jehovah's Witness refusing a blood transfusion, > >>Dennis? > >I was talking about neither "a scieno refusing treatment" nor a JH > >refusing transfusion! I was talking about Lisa's particular > >situation. > Was she psychologically capable of making an > informed choice about her treatment?
Perhaps I'm missing something, here, but the only report I read about Lisa indicated that she was removed from the hospital against medical advice by several $cientologists who stated that it was against Lisa's religious beliefs to receive psychiatric treatment.
I have seen no indication anywhere that Lisa made any decision to be treated or not to be treated. One question I have, then, is how, without any power of attorney, living will or conservatorship documents in their hands, a group of $cientologists were permitted to remove Lisa from a mental hospital in which she was voluntarily resident at the time.
In the case of, say, a Christian Scientist refusing treatment for his children, the courts have generally intervened on behalf of the children and required treatment. In the case of Lisa, with $cientologists abducting her from a hospital, nobody lifted a finger to rescue her, as far as I can see. Whether she was actively opposed to being removed or was removed either voluntarily or as the result of undue influence or intimidation by the three $cientologists has not been reported anywhere I have seen.
>>Speculating on Lisa McPherson's state of mind after the accident is >>pretty useless. Claiming that hospital personnel "should" have known >>things and acted in certain ways based on what Lisa "might" have told >>them is an exercise in futility. The hospital handled this by the >>book -- just as any other hospital would have done..
>Surely, people having accidents do not usually and typically take >off all their clothes and wander about in a daze?
No, but bizarre incidents do happen and they don't necessarily indicate mental illness. Hidden neurological injuries may lead accident victims to do any number of strange things. That doesn't mean that the accident victim is crazy -- unless people with concussions are thrown into psychiatric wards in Canada.
>You Yanks are weirder than I thought! Up here, people with mental >problems are generally taken care of. This includes holding them >for observation after they engage in crazy behaviour like Lisa >was doing. It's all perfectly legal; no new laws need to be >passed to help people with mental problems. If Lisa had had >that accident in Victoria, she would be alive today.
For your information, Martin, involuntary commitment laws and procedures in Canada closely parallel those in the United States.
>I think the hospital staff should be sued for incompetence. "By >the book", my ass.
Fine. Why don't you sue them, then? It appears that's the only way you'll ever find out how horribly misinformed you are.
"Rev" == Rev Dennis Erlich <inF...@super.zippo.com> writes:
>> Was she psychologically capable of making an informed choice about >> her treatment?
Rev> Her prior behavior at the scene of the accident calls that Rev> into question.
I don't know the laws of Florida; in Indiana any of the doctors who saw her could have unilaterally and without any serious threat of censure placed her on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, given her reported behavior, during which she could legally be restrained from leaving the hospital.
Why the doctor did not do so is a matter for speculation. I do not think that it's tortious malpractice, however; in general, such holds are only practically mandatory in the case suicide attempts or obvious homocidal impulses (and the latter generally involves police detainment, anyway).
In article <33DE9D5D.5...@pacbell.net>, wow...@pacbell.net wrote: >Perhaps I'm missing something, here, but the only report >I read about Lisa indicated that she was removed from the >hospital against medical advice by several $cientologists >who stated that it was against Lisa's religious beliefs >to receive psychiatric treatment. >I have seen no indication anywhere that Lisa made any decision to >be treated or not to be treated.
Lisa had to sign an "ama" agreement (I think that's what their called. "Against Medical Advice) when she left the hospital. All of the risks of leaving had to have been explained to her and she had to agree (by signing) that she understood the risks and that she was making the decision to leave of her own free will. So... she wasn't really "removed" in the sense that she asked to leave.
In article <m2n2n5kkm8....@poverty.bloomington.in.us>, Scott Goehring <sc...@poverty.bloomington.in.us> wrote:
>"Rev" == Rev Dennis Erlich <inF...@super.zippo.com> writes: >>> Was she psychologically capable of making an informed choice about >>> her treatment?
>Rev> Her prior behavior at the scene of the accident calls that >Rev> into question.
>I don't know the laws of Florida; in Indiana any of the doctors who >saw her could have unilaterally and without any serious threat of >censure placed her on a 72 hour psychiatric hold, given her reported >behavior, during which she could legally be restrained from leaving >the hospital.
I don't think this is really the case, Scott. Yes, the doctors could have involuntarily held her, but once she got out of the hospital she could have sued the hospital. Considering her "religious" affiliations, it's not at all unlikely that she would have done just that. (Though I don't think fear of a lawsuit was the primary factor in the hospital staff choosing to let her go.)
I think that a doctor would have had a tough time making the case for her being a "danger to herself or others" based on what we've read of Lisa M's behavior. Yes, she was obviously having some psychiatric problems-- but suicidal or homicidal? It sure doesn't look that way to me. So, I think there really would have been a serious threat of censure had they held her against her will.
