Mental Health in the Courts.

As noted in the June 15 News, Florida's new Special Committee on Mental Health in the Courts is recommending legislative changes that would drastically increase the number of individuals "treated" against their will for substance abuse and mental health disorders.

In reading the committee's interim recommendations, I am reminded of an old saying (paraphrased): "Beware the tyrant who thinks he's helping you; he will never relent because he torments you with the approval of his own conscience."

The recommendations fly directly in the face of decades of jurisprudence on the matter of forced treatment. Federal and state courts have deemed involuntary commitment to be a "massive curtailment of liberty" requiring heightened constitutional scrutiny. Contrary to the committee's proposals, the state may not force a person into treatment for committing property damage, deprive her of freedom for 10 days without due process, or prevent defense attorneys from directly cross-examining the psychiatrist (who is usually the state's only witness).

The proposals are also grounded in several false assumptions of fact: that forced treatment is more beneficial than harmful (evidence indicates otherwise); that increasing involuntary commitments will decrease the number of mentally ill prisoners (there is absolutely no evidence for this); and that individuals receive quality treatment in state receiving facilities (most provide bare-bones, subpar treatment). Any policy that stems from such false presumptions is bound to be counterproductive and harmful.

Society has come to accept that individuals with mental health and substance abuse disorders deserve medical treatment. This is a noble proposition, yet we have inexplicably concluded that the right to treatment implies a right to force treatment on unwilling individuals. However, forced addiction treatment can dramatically increase the risk of fatal overdose upon a person's eventual release, and forced mental health treatment destroys the patient's trust in the system and decreases his or her willingness to obtain voluntary treatment in the future.

Many individuals are desperate to enter into beneficial, voluntary programs but cannot afford it. Why is the committee wasting time and violating patients' rights on harmful, coercive methods rather than entertaining legislative changes that would facilitate voluntary treatment?

Kendra E. Parris

Orlando

HYPO (based on actual occurrence): D became a Christian. D told...