Laura's Law

Last updated

Laura's Law is a California state law that allows for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment. To qualify for the program, the person must have a serious mental illness plus a recent history of psychiatric hospitalizations, jailings or acts, threats or attempts of serious violent behavior towards self or others.

Contents

The law was named after Laura Wilcox, a receptionist who was killed by a man who had refused psychiatric treatment. Modeled on Kendra's Law, a similar statute enacted in New York, the bill was introduced as Assembly Bill 1421 by Assemblywoman Helen Thomson, a Democrat from Davis. The measure passed the California Legislature in 2002 and was signed into law by Governor Gray Davis. The statute can only be used in counties that choose to enact outpatient commitment programs based on the measure.

Background

Laura Wilcox was a 19-year-old college sophomore who had been valedictorian of her high school before going on to study at Haverford College. [1] While working at Nevada County's public mental health clinic during her winter break from college, on January 10, 2001, she and two other people were shot to death by Scott Harlan Thorpe, a 40-year-old man who resisted his family's and a social worker's attempt to have him hospitalized when he became increasingly delusional and paranoid. [2] [3] [4] Thorpe was found incompetent to stand trial and was sent to Atascadero State Hospital and was later transferred to California's Napa State Hospital. After the killings, Laura's parents chose to advocate for assisted outpatient treatment of individuals considered to have mental illness.

Implementation at county discretion

The law is only operative in those counties in which the county board of supervisors, by resolution, authorizes its application and makes a finding that no voluntary mental health program serving adults, and no children's mental health program, was reduced in order to implement the law. [5]

In November 2004, California voters passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA). The California Department of Mental Health (DMH) released its draft plan requirements for county mental health administrators on February 15, 2005 and included a provision that would allow MHSA funds to be used for "involuntary services" if certain criteria were met.

In 2004, Los Angeles County implemented Laura's Law on a limited basis. [6] Since passage of MHSA, Laura's Law provisions have been implemented in Kern County, [7] Los Angeles County, Nevada County, Orange County, Placer County, San Diego County, San Mateo County, [8] [9] Yolo County, Contra Costa County, the City and County of San Francisco, Ventura County, San Luis Obispo County, Alameda County [10] [11] and Mendocino County [12] [13]

By 2010, Nevada County, where the shootings took place, fully implemented the law. In 2010 the California State Association of Counties chose Nevada County to receive its Challenge Award for implementing Laura's Law. [14] In 2011 a National Association of Counties Achievement Award in Health was awarded to Nevada County for the Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program.

Marin County launched a two-year pilot program for Laura's Law on September 4, 2018. [15] Santa Clara County adopted the provisions on May 25, 2021, at which time 21 out of 58 counties had opted in. Legislation in 2020 required counties to participate or explicitly opt out by July 1, 2021. Counties may choose to participate or opt-out of the program at the beginning of each fiscal year. [16] [17]

In those counties that adopt outpatient commitment, the process will ensure individuals are provided the services, medical treatment and medication that will enable the person to have a good chance to recover. Nevada County Director Michael Heggarty described it as part of the recovery movement. [18]

Assisted outpatient treatment eligibility criteria

To be eligible under Laura's Law, a patient must have a serious mental illness plus a recent history of psychiatric hospitalizations, jailings or acts, threats or attempts of serious violent behavior towards self or others. The recipient must also have been offered an opportunity to voluntarily participate in a treatment plan by the local mental health department, yet fails to the point that, without a Laura's Law program, he or she will likely relapse or deteriorate to the point of being dangerous to self or others. "Participation in the assisted outpatient program is the least restrictive placement necessary to ensure the person's recovery and stability." While a specified group of individuals may request an investigation to determine if a person qualifies for a Laura's Law program, only the County mental health director, or his or her designee, may file a petition with the superior court for a hearing to determine if the person should be court ordered to receive the services specified under the law.

A person may be placed in an assisted outpatient treatment if, after a hearing, a court finds that the following criteria [19] have been met. The patient must:

  1. Been a significant factor in his or her being in a hospital, prison or jail at least twice within the last thirty-six months; or
  2. Resulted in one or more acts, attempts or threats of serious violent behavior toward self or others within the last forty-eight months
  1. A serious risk of harm to himself or herself or others; or
  2. Gravely disabled (in immediate physical danger due to being unable to meet basic needs for food, clothing, or shelter);

If the court finds that the individual meets the statutory criteria, the recipient will be provided intensive community treatment services and supervision by multidisciplinary teams of highly trained mental health professionals with staff-to-client ratios of not more than 1 to 10, and additional services, as specified, for persons with the most persistent and severe mental illness. The law specifies various rights of the person who is the subject of a Laura's Law petition as well as due process hearing rights. The bill also provides for voluntary settlement agreements as an alternative to the hearing process. [19]

Debate over bill's efficacy and propriety

Supporters

Passage of the bill was supported by organizations such as the California Treatment Advocacy Coalition (an affiliate of the Treatment Advocacy Center), the California Psychiatric Association, the Police Chiefs Association, Mental Illness Policy Org. and the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). In an editorial endorsement of the law, the Los Angeles Times touted then-Governor Gray Davis's support, while limiting its comments on opponents to mentioning that the Citizens Commission on Human Rights which opposes virtually all psychiatric treatments, sponsored a rally at the Capitol against Laura's law. [20] The San Francisco Chronicle [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] and The San Francisco Examiner [27] have published positive articles on the topic. The Los Angeles Times won a Pulitzer Prize, in part for its coverage of Laura's Law. [28]

Opposition

MindFreedom International and the California Network of Mental Health Clients (CNMHC), along with allies in the psychiatric survivors movement, also fought the measure and its earlier versions, accusing such legislation as a regressive and reprehensible scheme to enforce coerced drug treatment regimens against the will of patients. The Church of Scientology and the Citizens Commission on Human Rights have also gained attention as an opponent of the new law. [29] [30]

Outpatient commitment opponents make several varied arguments. Some dispute the positive effects of compulsory treatment, questioning the methodology of studies that show effectiveness. Others highlight negative effects of treatment. Still others point to disparities in the way these laws are applied. The psychiatric survivors movement opposes compulsory treatment on the basis that the ordered drugs often have serious or unpleasant side-effects such as anhedonia, tardive dyskinesia, neuroleptic malignant syndrome, excessive weight gain leading to diabetes, addiction, sexual side effects, and increased risk of suicide.

John M. Grohol, Psy.D., in his article "The Double Standard of Forced Treatment", says "Forced treatment for people with mental illness has had a long and abusive history, both here in the United States and throughout the world. No other medical specialty has the rights psychiatry and psychology do to take away a person's freedom in order to help "treat" that person. Historically, the profession has suffered from abusing this right — so much so that reform laws in the 1970s and 1980s took the profession's right away from them to confine people against their will. Such forced treatment now requires a judge's signature. But over time, that judicial oversight — which is supposed to be the check in our checks-and-balance system — has largely become a rubber stamp to whatever the doctor thinks is best. The patient's voice once again threatens to become silenced, now under the guise of "assisted outpatient treatment" (just a modern, different term for forced treatment)." [31]

The New Mexico Court of Appeals declared an Albuquerque ordinance, modeled after Kendra's Law, requiring treatment for some mentally ill people conflicts with state law and can't be enforced. [32]

Tom Burns

Tom Burns, the psychiatrist who originally advised the United Kingdom's government on laws that are similar to Laura's Law, has also come to the conclusion they are ineffective and unnecessary. Professor Burns, once a strong supporter of the new powers, said he has been forced to change his mind after a study he conducted proved the orders "don't work". [33]

However, Burns' opinion was based heavily on his (very different) circumstances in the United Kingdom. The study he conducted found that coerced treatment was no better than regular/competent un-coerced treatment (the standard in the United Kingdom, which has public healthcare). As a result, the bulk of his argument does not apply to California, where the alternative to coerced treatment in most cases is no treatment at all. Professor Burns himself admitted that: "We were careful in our Lancet article to say that in well-coordinated mental health services, compulsory treatment has nothing to offer" [34] (emphasis added).

Burns went on to highlight another critical difference between the two systems, and even mentioned that as a psychiatrist under a European system he would be willing to order coercive treatment under circumstances similar to the ones described by Laura's Law: "There's a profound conceptual difference in the approach to mental health care between America and Europe. European laws often state "danger to self or others," but danger in Europe is almost always interpreted very broadly — and you might think paternalistically — to include the patient's mental health. If I have a seriously ill schizophrenic patient who is neglecting himself, not taking his medicine, and I know he's going to get worse, I can say that's a "danger" to his health. My understanding is that in many states in America, it's got to be an imminent physical risk." [34]

Studies

As a result of the opposition to Kendra's Law, similar in nature to Laura's Law, two studies were conducted on Kendra's Law and found favorable outcomes. One study of Assisted Outpatient Treatment within the United States and another study done by a previous proponent of AOT type laws in the United Kingdom did not.

A 2005 study, Kendra's Law A Final Report on the Status of Assisted Outpatient Treatment done by New York State's Office of Mental Health, found: [35]

Reduced Incidence of Harmful Behaviors Percent of Persons with One or More Events Reported in the Past 90 Days
Percent of Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) Recipients with Harmful Behaviors
  At Onset of AOT Court OrderAt Six MonthsPercent Reduction in Harmful Behaviors
Physically Harm Self/Made Suicide Attempt9%4%55%
Abuse Alcohol45%23%49%
Abuse Drugs44%23%48%
Threaten Suicide15%8%47%
Physically Harm Others15%8%47%
Damage or Destroy Property13%7%46%
Threaten Physical Harm28%16%43%
Create Public Disturbances24%15%38%
Verbally Assault Others33%21%36%
Theft7%5%29%
Average Percent Reduction  44%

(Table taken directly from source and converted to Wikipedia Table Template)

A 2009 study, New York State Assisted Outpatient Treatment Evaluation done by Duke University, Policy Research Associates, University of Virginia, found: [36]

 No current or recent AOT (n=134)Current AOT (n=115)
Outcome events (past six months)N %N %
Violent behavior21(15.7)12(10.4)
Suicidal thoughts or attempts22(16.4)17(14.8)
Homelessness13(9.7)6(5.2)
Involuntary commitment54(43.2)46(41.4)
Mental health pick-up/removal25(18.7)16(13.9)

(Table taken directly from source and converted to Wikipedia Table Template)

The study, Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders by Steve R Kisely, Leslie Anne Campbell, Neil J Preston published at The Cochrane Library found: [37]

We identified two randomised clinical trials (total n = 416) of court-ordered 'Outpatient Commitment' (OPC) from the USA. We found little evidence that compulsory community treatment was effective in any of the main outcome indices: health service use (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for readmission to hospital by 11-12 months 0.98 CI 0.79 to 1.2); social functioning (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for arrested at least once by 11-12 months 0.97 CI 0.62 to 1.52); mental state; quality of life (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for homelessness 0.67 CI 0.39 to 1.15) or satisfaction with care (2 RCTs, n = 416, RR for perceived coercion 1.36 CI 0.97 to 1.89). However, risk of victimisation may decrease with OPC (1 RCT, n = 264, RR 0.5 CI 0.31 to 0.8). In terms of numbers needed to treat (NNT), it would take 85 OPC orders to prevent one readmission, 27 to prevent one episode of homelessness and 238 to prevent one arrest. The NNT for the reduction of victimisation was lower at six (CI 6 to 6.5). A new search for trials in 2008 did not find any new trials that were relevant to this review.

The results of this study also did not support the usefulness of compulsory outpatient treatment: Community treatment orders (CTOs) for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial done by Professor Tom Burns DSc, Jorun Rugkåsa PhD, Andrew Molodynski MBChB, John Dawson LLD, Ksenija Yeeles BSc, Maria Vazquez-Montes PhD, Merryn Voysey MBiostat, Julia Sinclair DPhil, and Professor Stefan Priebe FRCPsych found: [38]

Of 442 patients assessed, 336 patients were randomly assigned to be discharged from hospital either on CTO (167 patients) or Section 17 leave (169 patients). One patient withdrew directly after randomisation and two were ineligible, giving a total sample of 333 patients (166 in the CTO group and 167 in the Section 17 group). At 12 months, despite the fact that the length of initial compulsory outpatient treatment differed significantly between the two groups (median 183 days CTO group vs 8 days Section 17 group, p<0·001) the number of patients readmitted did not differ between groups (59 [36%] of 166 patients in the CTO group vs 60 [36%] of 167 patients in the Section 17 group; adjusted relative risk 1·0 [95% CI 0·75—1·33]).

See also

Related Research Articles

Involuntary commitment, civil commitment, or involuntary hospitalization/hospitalisation is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified person to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily. This treatment may involve the administration of psychoactive drugs, including involuntary administration. In many jurisdictions, people diagnosed with mental health disorders can also be forced to undergo treatment while in the community; this is sometimes referred to as outpatient commitment and shares legal processes with commitment.

Outpatient commitment—also called assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) or community treatment orders (CTO)—refers to a civil court procedure wherein a legal process orders an individual diagnosed with a severe mental disorder to adhere to an outpatient treatment plan designed to prevent further deterioration or recurrence that is harmful to themselves or others.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Psychiatric hospital</span> Hospital specializing in the treatment of serious mental disorders

A psychiatric hospital, also known as a mental health hospital, or a behavioral health hospital, is a specialized medical facility that focuses on the treatment of severe mental disorders. These institutions cater to patients with conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder, and eating disorders, among others.

Edwin Fuller Torrey, is an American psychiatrist and schizophrenia researcher. He is associate director of research at the Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI) and founder of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC), a nonprofit organization whose principal activity is promoting the passage and implementation of outpatient commitment laws and civil commitment laws and standards in individual states that allow people diagnosed with severe mental illness to be involuntarily hospitalized and treated throughout the United States.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health law</span>

Mental health law includes a wide variety of legal topics and pertain to people with a diagnosis or possible diagnosis of a mental health condition, and to those involved in managing or treating such people. Laws that relate to mental health include:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Voluntary commitment</span> Choosing to admit oneself to a psychiatric hospital

Voluntary commitment is the act or practice of choosing to admit oneself to a psychiatric hospital, or other mental health facility. Unlike in involuntary commitment, the person is free to leave the hospital against medical advice, though there may be a requirement of a period of notice or that the leaving take place during daylight hours. In some jurisdictions, a distinction is drawn between formal and informal voluntary commitment, and this may have an effect on how much notice the individual must give before leaving the hospital. This period may be used for the hospital to use involuntary commitment procedures against the patient. People with mental illness can write psychiatric advance directives in which they can, in advance, consent to voluntary admission to a hospital and thus avoid involuntary commitment.

The Lanterman–Petris–Short (LPS) Act regulates involuntary civil commitment to a mental health institution in the state of California. The act set the precedent for modern mental health commitment procedures in the United States. The bipartisan bill was co-authored by California State Assemblyman Frank D. Lanterman (R) and California State Senators Nicholas C. Petris (D) and Alan Short (D), and signed into law in 1967 by Governor Ronald Reagan. The Act went into full effect on July 1, 1972. It cited seven articles of intent:

In November 2004, voters in the U.S. state of California passed Proposition 63, the Mental Health Services Act (MHSA), which has been designed to expand and transform California's county mental health service systems. The MHSA is funded by imposing an additional one percent tax on individual, but not corporate, taxable income in excess of one million dollars. In becoming law in January 2005, the MHSA represents the latest in a Californian legislative movement, begun in the 1990s, to provide better coordinated and more comprehensive care to those with serious mental illness, particularly in underserved populations. Its claim of successes thus far, such as with the development of innovative and integrated Full Service Partnerships (FSPs), are not without detractors who highlight many problems but especially a lack of oversight, large amount of unspent funds, poor transparency, lack of engagement in some communities, and a lack of adherence to required reporting as challenges MHSA implementation must overcome to fulfill the law's widely touted potential.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Emergency psychiatry</span> Clinical application of psychiatry in emergency settings

Emergency psychiatry is the clinical application of psychiatry in emergency settings. Conditions requiring psychiatric interventions may include attempted suicide, substance abuse, depression, psychosis, violence or other rapid changes in behavior.

The Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) is a U.S. non-profit organization based in Arlington, Virginia, originally announced as the NAMI Treatment Action Centre in 1997. The TAC was subsequently directed by psychiatrist E. Fuller Torrey and identifies its mission as "dedicated to eliminating barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness". The organization is most well-known for proposed laws, policies, and practices regarding legally compelled outpatient services or outpatient commitment for people diagnosed with mental illness. The organization identifies its other key issues as "anosognosia, consequences of non-treatment, criminalization of mental illness, psychiatric bed shortages, public service costs, violence and mental illness". Advocates for mental health have criticized TAC for endorsing coercion and forced treatment.

Involuntary treatment refers to medical treatment undertaken without the consent of the person being treated. Involuntary treatment is permitted by law in some countries when overseen by the judiciary through court orders; other countries defer directly to the medical opinions of doctors.

Kendra's Law, effective since November 1999, is a New York State law concerning involuntary outpatient commitment also known as assisted outpatient treatment. It grants judges the authority to issue orders that require people who meet certain criteria to regularly undergo psychiatric treatment. Failure to comply could result in commitment for up to 72 hours. Kendra's Law does not mandate that patients be forced to take medication.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Community Mental Health Act</span> 1963 American law

The Community Mental Health Act of 1963 (CMHA) was an act to provide federal funding for community mental health centers and research facilities in the United States. This legislation was passed as part of John F. Kennedy's New Frontier. It led to considerable deinstitutionalization.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Deinstitutionalisation</span> Replacement of psychiatric hospitals

Deinstitutionalisation is the process of replacing long-stay psychiatric hospitals with less isolated community mental health services for those diagnosed with a mental disorder or developmental disability. In the 1950's and 1960's, it led to the closure of many psychiatric hospitals, as patients were increasingly cared for at home, in halfway houses, group homes, and clinics, in regular hospitals, or not at all.

The Florida Mental Health Act of 1971, commonly known as the "Baker Act," allows for a) short-term, inpatient voluntary and involuntary examination, b) inpatient voluntary and involuntary admission of an individual for assessment and treatment of a mental illness, and c) involuntary outpatient treatment for mental illness.

The obligatory dangerousness criterion is a principle present in the mental health law of many developed countries. It mandates evidence of dangerousness to oneself or to others before involuntary treatment for mental illness. The term "dangerousness" refers to one's ability to hurt oneself or others physically or mentally within an imminent time frame, and the harm caused must have a long-term effect on the person(s).

The following outline is provided as an overview of and topical guide to psychiatry:

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Mental health tribunal</span> Tribunal hearing for mental health treatment disputes

A mental health tribunal is a specialist tribunal (hearing) empowered by law to adjudicate disputes about mental health treatment and detention, primarily by conducting independent reviews of patients diagnosed with mental disorders who are detained in psychiatric hospitals, or under outpatient commitment, and who may be subject to involuntary treatment.

Involuntary commitment or civil commitment is a legal process through which an individual who is deemed by a qualified agent to have symptoms of severe mental disorder is detained in a psychiatric hospital (inpatient) where they can be treated involuntarily.

On January 10, 2001, a shooting spree took place in Nevada County, California when 40-year-old Scott Harlan Thorpe opened fire with a semi-automatic pistol killing three people and wounding three others in two separate shootings in the Nevada County area. The victims were 19-year-old Laura Wilcox, 68-year-old Pearlie Mae Feldman, and 24-year-old Mike Markle. The shooting spree led to the implementation of Laura's Law, a California state law that allows for court-ordered assisted outpatient treatment. The law was named after Laura Wilcox, one of the victims of the shooting spree. Michael Moore's 2002 documentary film Bowling for Columbine was dedicated to Wilcox's memory.

References

  1. ↑ Jenkins, Logan (2013-03-08). "As county considers Laura's Law, a mother reflects". U-T San Diego. Retrieved 9 March 2013.
  2. ↑ Dickey, John. "Failed warnings arose as killer's paranoia grew".
  3. ↑ Carry out 'Laura's Law', editorial, San Francisco Chronicle , March 21, 2006.
  4. ↑ In memoriam: Laura Wilcox Archived 2008-03-19 at the Wayback Machine , YubaNet.com
  5. ↑ Welfare and Institutions Code 5349 leginfo.ca.gov. http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=wic&group=05001-06000&file=5345-5349.5 Archived 2010-11-23 at the Wayback Machine
  6. ↑ "True help on mental illness". psychlaws.org. Los Angeles Times. February 14, 2004. Archived from the original on April 4, 2004. Retrieved 12 May 2024.
  7. ↑ "Kern County Adopts Laura's Law". California County News. 29 July 2015. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
  8. ↑ "County approves aid for mentally ill". Half Moon Bay Review. 24 June 2015. Retrieved 12 January 2017.
  9. ↑ "Laura's Law A Functional Outline", NAMI San Mateo, archived from the original on 2011-07-27, retrieved 2010-10-27
  10. ↑ Alameda County Assisted Outpatient Treatment Retrieved 23 December 2017
  11. ↑ Alameda Assisted Outpatient Treatment and Community Conservatorship Telecare Corp. has 17 of 30 slots in Alameda County. Retrieved 23 December 2017
  12. ↑ "Ukiah Daily Journal" Retrieved 14 July 2016.
  13. ↑ "Laura's Law Home Page" Mental Illness Policy Org. Retrieved 9 August 2015.
  14. ↑ "California Challenge Award Recipients 2010", California State Association of Counties, 2010, archived from the original on 2010-11-21, retrieved 2010-10-27
  15. ↑ "Marin debuts two-year Laura's Law pilot after years of resistance". Marin Independent Journal. 19 September 2018. Retrieved 5 December 2018.
  16. ↑ Reese, Madelyn (2021-05-25). "UPDATE: Santa Clara County adopts Laura's Law". San José Spotlight. Retrieved 2021-06-03.
  17. ↑ "Laura's Law". California Association of Local Behavioral Health Boards & Commissions. Retrieved 2021-06-03.
  18. ↑ McConahay, Pat (2010-08-19), "Debate Continues Over Laura's Law, Mental Health Care", California Healthline, retrieved 2010-10-27
  19. 1 2 Laura's Law. AB 1421. September 28th, 2002. leginfo.ca.gov. http://leginfo.ca.gov/pub/01-02/bill/asm/ab_1401-1450/ab_1421_bill_20020928_chaptered.html
  20. ↑ Helping people off the streets: Governor, sign Laura's Law Archived 2005-03-05 at the Wayback Machine , The Los Angeles Times , September 28, 2002
  21. ↑ Fagan, Kevin (2010-05-12), "Why Laura's Law has had limited impact", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2010-10-27
  22. ↑ Martin, Fred (2010-03-22), "San Francisco chooses jail over treatment", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2010-10-27
  23. ↑ Nevius, C.W. (2010-07-20), "Laura's Law faces battle with supervisors", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2010-10-27
  24. ↑ Nevius, C.W. (2010-07-31), "Katz, supes need to give Laura's Law a chance", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2010-10-27
  25. ↑ Cummings, Stephen (2010-08-01), "Laura's Law will save mentally ill, S.F. budget", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2010-10-27
  26. ↑ Stettin, Brian (2010-08-17), "Correcting the record on Laura's Law", San Francisco Chronicle, retrieved 2010-10-27
  27. ↑ Griffin, Melissa (2010-05-27), "Griffin: Laura's Law is sane choice", San Francisco Examiner, archived from the original on July 16, 2011, retrieved 2010-10-27
  28. ↑ "Housing, Homelessness, and Mental Illness - Recommendations for President Bush's New Freedom Initiative Commission on Mental Health Services", NAMI, 2002-11-13, retrieved 2010-10-27
  29. ↑ Community Fights the Psychiatric Steamroller, article on a Scientology website
  30. ↑ "Los Angeles Times editorial supporting AB 1421, California bill for involuntary commitment: Governor, Sign Laura's Law 09 28 02". www.psychlaws.org. Archived from the original on March 5, 2005.
  31. ↑ Grohol, John (2012-11-26). "The Double Standard of Forced Treatment". PsychCentral. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  32. ↑ "Court Nixes Albuquerque Ordinance On Mentally Ill". Associated Press. 5 August 2008. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  33. ↑ Manning, Sanchez (14 April 2013). "'Psychiatric Asbos' were an error says key advisor". The Independent. Retrieved 30 May 2013.
  34. 1 2 "Can Laura's Law help the mentally ill? Researcher Tom Burns' surprising conclusion".
  35. ↑ Carpinello, Sharon (March 2005), "Kendra's Law Final Report on the Status of Assisted Outpatient Treatment", Office of Mental Health NY, retrieved 2010-10-27
  36. ↑ Swartz, Marvin (2009-06-30), "New York State Assisted Outpatient Treatment Program Evaluation" (PDF), Office of Mental Health NY, retrieved 2010-10-27
  37. ↑ Kisely, Steve R.; Campbell, Leslie A.; O'Reilly, Richard (17 March 2017). "Compulsory community and involuntary outpatient treatment for people with severe mental disorders". The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 3 (6): CD004408. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD004408.pub5. ISSN   1469-493X. PMC   6464695 . PMID   28303578.
  38. ↑ Burns, Thomas; Jorun Rugkåsa; Andrew Molodynski; John Dawson; Ksenija Yeeles; Maria Vazquez-Montes; Merryn Voysey; Julia Sinclair; Stefan Priebe (11 May 2013). "Community treatment orders for patients with psychosis (OCTET): a randomised controlled trial" (PDF). The Lancet. 381 (9878): 1627–1633. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)60107-5. PMID   23537605. S2CID   16949843.
Opponent views
Proponent views
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.