Public Comment

This piece is partly a response to an article by Lindsay Aikman, who describes the plight of her son who will not accept treatment. 

My sympathy goes out to Ms. Aikman. I wholeheartedly agree that there must be a way to get people into treatment who have deteriorated and who will not accept help. 

But is Laura's Law the way to achieve this? I am not so sure. I have read much of the text of AB 1421, and I see some flaws in it, despite not being an attorney and having next to no legal expertise. 

The law calls for teams of "highly trained professionals" to deliver treatment (once someone is in the program) but doesn't specify any professional qualifications for members of these "teams." This leaves the door open for people to be on the teams who are entry level and who may or may not have adequate qualifications to treat persons with acute mental illness. 

This law forces people to undergo a mental health examination. And if they refuse to be examined, they can be considered by a clinician to be in need of services. 

This law doesn't incorporate an adequate mechanism to assure that patients are treated humanely. The only mechanisms provided are an optional appearance in court, and the promise of access to the Public Defender. Laura's Law doesn't provide an adequate system of checks and balances, and it leaves too much up to the discretion of those implementing it. 

If a mental health consumer objects to treatment through Laura's Law, he or she can only fight it if savvy concerning the court system. The law specifies that if the consumer wants legal representation, they may have to pay for this out of their own pocket. 

The laws that existed before Laura's Law went into effect existed because there was a great deal of abuse of mental health consumers at the hands of "professionals." History has shown that when too much discretion and power are given to those in charge of treating mentally ill people, this power and discretion will inevitably be abused. 

At this stage, those in charge of implementing the law are on their best behavior so that people will be convinced it is a good idea, so that the law will be enacted everywhere. A few years from now, when the law is fully implemented, we may once again see the abuses that led to past reforms. 

Counties may like the law because it seems like a more economical way to treat people. However, due to its flaws, I am against it. 

Again, my sympathy goes out to Ms. Aikman and her son. But I believe we can do better than Laura's Law as it currently exists. 

*** 

For those who are interested, please click on this link.