Civil commitment is a judicial process where a person can be unwillingly detained, assessed and treated for a mental illness that has the possibility to put themselves or others at risk for harm. According to (Maggio, 2010) a person must meet the following criteria to be considered for civil commitment:
1. The person had a "mental illness" and was in need of treatment;
2. The person was a danger to them self or others; or
3. The person was unable to care for them self ("grave disability").
Civil commitment is usually used as a last resort option utilized by law enforcement, mental health professionals and family members (National center for state courts, 1986). During the 1960s and 1970s, aggressive advocacy on behalf of mental patients' civil rights led to the widespread adoption of legal safeguards in involuntary civil commitment laws resembling the due process guarantees of the criminal justice model (National center for state courts, 1986). Among these were the threshold requirement that a person be dangerous before he or she may be committed, the right to notice, access to legal representation during all phases of the commitment proceedings, the right to a judicial hearing to challenge the initial commitment, determinate and relatively brief commitment periods, and the right to mandatory periodic reviews of continued involuntary commitment (National center for state courts, 1986).
Even though civil commitment is an essential law to have and enforce in our society, it can have its pitfalls. The homeless population is on that can be ill targeted by law enforcement in regards to civil commitment. It is known that many homeless people do suffer from mental illnesses, being homeless is not diagnosable criteria and should not be considered when civil commitment is attempted to be enforced (Maggio, 2010). Many believe that the needs of the many (e.g. society) should outweigh the needs of the few (e.g. mentally ill, homeless) and it has been argued that proponents are quick to justify their beliefs with biased opinions of homeless and/or mentally ill individuals displaying stronger tendencies toward violence (Maggio, 2010). Though this can be true in some cases, it is not necessarily a fact that all mentally ill individuals are violent (Maggio, 2010).
Since civil commitment is a last resort option for treating the mentally ill, it should be noted that there are certain guidelines a clinician should consider before petitioning for a civil commitment. The person should be unable to make decisions for themselves regarding physical and mental health treatment (Mental Health America, 2010). The individual must be deemed incompetent according to state law; this is because in order to treat an individual for a mental illness informed consent must be obtained, if the person is deemed incompetent to give informed consent treatment can commence (Mental Health America, 2010). The individual should present a clear and present (or near future) danger to him/herself and those around him, including family members and the local community (Mental Health America, 2010). The treatment approach should leave the person with as much dignity as humanly possible to ensure that treatment efforts are effective. Lastly the person should go through a legal process to ensure the above statements are true (Mental Health America, 2010). With all the proper procedures followed civil commitment can be an effective process to help individuals that cannot help themselves.
References
Aging and disability resource center. (2009). Civil commitment understanding the commitment process in brown county. Green Bay: The ADRC of Brown County.
Maggio, S. (2010, June 28). Civil commitment of the mentally ill. Retrieved October 26, 2010, from Suite 101: http://www.suite101.com/content/civil-commitment-of-the-mentally-ill-a255307
Mental Health America. (2010, March 10). Involuntary mental health treatment . Retrieved October 26, 2010, from position statements: http://nmha.org/go/position-statements/p-36
National center for state courts. (1986). Involuntary commitment. National center for state courts.
No comments:
Post a Comment