40 ms·

I have no idea where the legal line lies in most situations, but would be interested if anyone does know it. Sure, I deal with this on a nightly basis, when I'

I have no idea where the legal line lies in most situations, but would be interested if anyone does know it. Sure, I deal with this on a nightly basis, when I'm at work. Most state laws stipulate that the only reason a hospital can hold someone against their will, is if they are a danger to themselves (in imminent danger of committing suicide), a danger to others (in imminent danger of committing homicide.) or gravely disabled ( e.g. walking around quacking like a duck and drinking from puddles). And, even then, an ER can only place someone on a 72 hour hold. Then it has to go to court to hold someone against their will on a 10 day paper. Getting someone committed to rehab for alcoholism is generally a court driven exercise that happens after a person has multiple DUI's or instances of committing crimes that are drug use related. The law takes committing someone to drug, alcohol or psychiatric treatment against their will very, very seriously and only does so in extreme circumstances. And, frankly, providing a wet house for people to continue to choose to drink themselves to death is probably the path of least resistance, it's cheaper and in my opinion is the most humane of all the bad options.

Groxx 16y ago
>Then it has to go to court to hold someone against their will on a 10 day paper. I don't quite follow that sentence... is that to get a 10 day period enforcement, or to go over 10 days? Or something else? All in all, pretty clear, thanks! That sounds like a pretty rational set of rules. My main difficulties lie in that people seem to only care about things when they become imminent and obvious, while ignoring steady trends that are just as dangerous (or more). Legally, imminent is a nice, clean line to choose, because it's pretty clear most times. It's a line that can be protected, which is hugely important. Ethically, I don't know, and any actions would be at odds with their free will... unless you view addictions as violations of their free will to begin with. A loss of free will that they chose, but that decision doesn't hold up against extremes like suicide. Is suicide somehow worse when it's immediate rather than over the course of, say, a year? What if they planned it for a year, and you only interrupted it at the crucial moment?

Groxx 16y ago

>Then it has to go to court to hold someone against their will on a 10 day paper. I don't quite follow that sentence... is that to get a 10 day period enforcement, or to go over 10 days? Or something else? All in all, pretty clear, thanks! That sounds like a pretty rational set of rules. My main difficulties lie in that people seem to only care about things when they become imminent and obvious, while ignoring steady trends that are just as dangerous (or more). Legally, imminent is a nice, clean line to choose, because it's pretty clear most times. It's a line that can be protected, which is hugely important. Ethically, I don't know, and any actions would be at odds with their free will... unless you view addictions as violations of their free will to begin with. A loss of free will that they chose, but that decision doesn't hold up against extremes like suicide. Is suicide somehow worse when it's immediate rather than over the course of, say, a year? What if they planned it for a year, and you only interrupted it at the crucial moment?