5 ms·

What legal recourse were you looking for? What court battle would you have gotten into around this?

paulcole 7y ago
Yeah I agree, like isn't that the way it should be? An independent adult doing what they want and what's legal shouldn't have to go to court over it.
- pfortuny 7y ago
  Addiction is a sickness. Saying that the person “wants” to drink (or do heroin) is missing a huge part of the problem.
  - paulcole 7y ago
    I have diabetes and if I decide I don't want to take my insulin because I'm fed up with the hassle, I shouldn't have to go to court over it. It's my choice and my life.
    - DanBC 7y ago
      Sure, if you have capacity to make a choice you should be allowed to make an unwise choice. People are asking how much capacity a person has if they are addicted.
      - fsloth 7y ago
        The thing is - this is impossible to quantify. So basically, you are left with a binary decision - is it okay to overturn peoples civil liberties over arbitrary quotas or not. Personally - having suffered the devastation an addiction of a close relative causes in everyone around them - i would still prefer the current model where people are not forced to things against their will just because they drink too much alcohol.
        DanBC 7y ago
        (I'm in England so all of this is somewhat from an English perspective) There are roughly two camps when we talk about a human rights approach to mental health law, and they're not compatible with each other. The more mainstream version is to look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which flows into the EU Convention on Human Rights, which flows into national law. Under this system we can still have detention under mental health law, forced medication, and substituted decision making. But you do need some protections in place to prevent arbitrary detention and to give people a right of appeal. The less mainstream view is to look at the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under this approach you cannot detain people under mental health laws, you can force them to take medication against their will, and you can only have supported decision making, you cannot have substituted decision making. There's some discussion on the CRPD here: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/disability-rights-mental-health-treatment-and-the-united-nations-ronr2019/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/disability-... https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-...
        whiddershins 7y ago
        Wait, in the second case you can or can not force them to take medication against their will?
        DanBC 7y ago
        In the second case you can not force people to take medication against their will.
    - smileysteve 7y ago
      If this is strictly a patient's choice; then health insurance providers, especially the government (medicare, medicaid) or future government programs should also have a similar choice of requiring pre-consent for DNRs and to some extent bypass quality of life considerations (amputations for diabetes complications) for costs. It's also arguable that state regulated or state run health insurance should require some degree of self insurance for people making these detrimental choices.
      - pkaye 7y ago
        You can fill out what's called an Advance Care Directive. My health care provider gave us a form to fill out and they will keep on record. Its a series of questions you have to answer to help make the decision when you no longer are able.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Addiction is a sickness, and society needs to treat it as the public health problem it is and effective treatment needs to be made easily and cheaply available to all who need it. However, incarcerating people against their will, forcing them to take medication against their will, possibly for months, is problematic. We might tolerate that if it worked, but from the evidence we have we don't think it will work for many people with substance misuse. Addiction treatment is hard. I don't know many people working in addiction treatment who are asking for more legal powers to detain people. In England I sometimes speak to people with substance misuse disorders (comorbid with mental illness, or learning disability, or autism, or a mix). Many of them will have been detained for mental illness (they were not detained because of substance misuse). It's fair to say they have mixed views about compulsory treatment. Some of them hate it and think it caused them harm. Some of them think it was transformative. It is complicated.
wjossey 7y ago
We were able to work with the local county sheriff, as well as social services, to get him forced into a hospital due to him being a danger to himself. In Ohio, where he was located, this is called a pink-slip law. He was forced to go to a hospital, where he went into a brief 72 hour coma while he was withdrawing from alcohol. From there, he was hospitalized for another 7 days, and then forced to transfer to a physical rehabilitation center, as he was unable to walk under his own power. Once he was at the facility, he was no longer under a required hold. Once he realized this, he promptly left so he could go home and start drinking again. We spoke with lawyers about whether or not I could be granted conservatorship over him, as he went through this detox / early recovery period. Because he hadn't lost his mental faculties in any way, we were advised that a judge was unlikely to provide conservatorship to me, and it would be an expensive and damaging process. Our best bet was to convince him at a personal level, which is what we attempted. Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? It's clearly a philosophical question, and it comes down to your views on personal liberty, and whether someone suffering from deep addiction is still capable of making informed decisions. I, personally, believe that conservatorship laws are a reasonable approach to helping people get over the initial hump of detox and then understanding their addiction. I want people to have a fighting chance to come back from the brink, and we lacked the legal right to do so, in this case.
- elliotec 7y ago
  Interesting, thanks for the insight.
- taneq 7y ago
  > Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? If you're fat and likely to die of heart disease, should your family be allowed to physically restrain you from buying another burger? What about cigarettes, can you lock them up to force them to quit? If you ride too fast should they be able to force you to sell your motorbike? Should they be able to stop you from free-climbing?

Yeah I agree, like isn't that the way it should be? An independent adult doing what they want and what's legal shouldn't have to go to court over it.

pfortuny 7y ago
Addiction is a sickness. Saying that the person “wants” to drink (or do heroin) is missing a huge part of the problem.
- paulcole 7y ago
  I have diabetes and if I decide I don't want to take my insulin because I'm fed up with the hassle, I shouldn't have to go to court over it. It's my choice and my life.
  - DanBC 7y ago
    Sure, if you have capacity to make a choice you should be allowed to make an unwise choice. People are asking how much capacity a person has if they are addicted.
    - fsloth 7y ago
      The thing is - this is impossible to quantify. So basically, you are left with a binary decision - is it okay to overturn peoples civil liberties over arbitrary quotas or not. Personally - having suffered the devastation an addiction of a close relative causes in everyone around them - i would still prefer the current model where people are not forced to things against their will just because they drink too much alcohol.
      - DanBC 7y ago
        (I'm in England so all of this is somewhat from an English perspective) There are roughly two camps when we talk about a human rights approach to mental health law, and they're not compatible with each other. The more mainstream version is to look at the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which flows into the EU Convention on Human Rights, which flows into national law. Under this system we can still have detention under mental health law, forced medication, and substituted decision making. But you do need some protections in place to prevent arbitrary detention and to give people a right of appeal. The less mainstream view is to look at the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Under this approach you cannot detain people under mental health laws, you can force them to take medication against their will, and you can only have supported decision making, you cannot have substituted decision making. There's some discussion on the CRPD here: https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/disability-rights-mental-health-treatment-and-the-united-nations-ronr2019/ https://www.nationalelfservice.net/mental-health/disability-... https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-...
        whiddershins 7y ago
        Wait, in the second case you can or can not force them to take medication against their will?
        DanBC 7y ago
        In the second case you can not force people to take medication against their will.
  - smileysteve 7y ago
    If this is strictly a patient's choice; then health insurance providers, especially the government (medicare, medicaid) or future government programs should also have a similar choice of requiring pre-consent for DNRs and to some extent bypass quality of life considerations (amputations for diabetes complications) for costs. It's also arguable that state regulated or state run health insurance should require some degree of self insurance for people making these detrimental choices.
    - pkaye 7y ago
      You can fill out what's called an Advance Care Directive. My health care provider gave us a form to fill out and they will keep on record. Its a series of questions you have to answer to help make the decision when you no longer are able.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- DanBC 7y ago
  Addiction is a sickness, and society needs to treat it as the public health problem it is and effective treatment needs to be made easily and cheaply available to all who need it. However, incarcerating people against their will, forcing them to take medication against their will, possibly for months, is problematic. We might tolerate that if it worked, but from the evidence we have we don't think it will work for many people with substance misuse. Addiction treatment is hard. I don't know many people working in addiction treatment who are asking for more legal powers to detain people. In England I sometimes speak to people with substance misuse disorders (comorbid with mental illness, or learning disability, or autism, or a mix). Many of them will have been detained for mental illness (they were not detained because of substance misuse). It's fair to say they have mixed views about compulsory treatment. Some of them hate it and think it caused them harm. Some of them think it was transformative. It is complicated.

wjossey 7y ago

We were able to work with the local county sheriff, as well as social services, to get him forced into a hospital due to him being a danger to himself. In Ohio, where he was located, this is called a pink-slip law. He was forced to go to a hospital, where he went into a brief 72 hour coma while he was withdrawing from alcohol. From there, he was hospitalized for another 7 days, and then forced to transfer to a physical rehabilitation center, as he was unable to walk under his own power. Once he was at the facility, he was no longer under a required hold. Once he realized this, he promptly left so he could go home and start drinking again. We spoke with lawyers about whether or not I could be granted conservatorship over him, as he went through this detox / early recovery period. Because he hadn't lost his mental faculties in any way, we were advised that a judge was unlikely to provide conservatorship to me, and it would be an expensive and damaging process. Our best bet was to convince him at a personal level, which is what we attempted. Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? It's clearly a philosophical question, and it comes down to your views on personal liberty, and whether someone suffering from deep addiction is still capable of making informed decisions. I, personally, believe that conservatorship laws are a reasonable approach to helping people get over the initial hump of detox and then understanding their addiction. I want people to have a fighting chance to come back from the brink, and we lacked the legal right to do so, in this case.

elliotec 7y ago
Interesting, thanks for the insight.
taneq 7y ago
> Should people be allowed to drink themselves to death? Should families be powerless to help a family member with a disease that makes is so addictive, they can no longer make rational choices in relation to that substance? If you're fat and likely to die of heart disease, should your family be allowed to physically restrain you from buying another burger? What about cigarettes, can you lock them up to force them to quit? If you ride too fast should they be able to force you to sell your motorbike? Should they be able to stop you from free-climbing?