Bill would allow probate judges to commit 18-year-olds

MONTGOMERY — Earlier this year, Florence police responded to a call involving an 18-year-old woman having a mental health crisis.

She was a risk to herself and others, Lt. Brad Holmes said.

State law doesn’t allow probate judges, or the specially trained mental health officers in Lauderdale County, to commitment 18-year-olds to mental health facilities, Holmes said.

He said the state departments of Human Resources and Youth Services generally don’t intervene for 18-year-olds who are not already in their systems, as was the case with this out-of-state University of North Alabama student, Holmes said.

The young woman, who refused to stay at the hospital her friends had taken her to, was arrested, charged with disorderly conduct, and held by police until her family members could get to Alabama.

What she needed was mental health care, Holmes said.

“If a service isn’t available that is appropriate, we still have to safeguard the public,” he said. “This individual should have been in a hospital, but we didn’t have the means to make that happen.”

Senate Bill 330 in the Alabama Legislature would end that “mental health no-man’s-land” for 18-year-olds, sponsor Sen. Tim Melson, R-Florence, said this week.

It would change from 19 to 18 the age at which people can be involuntarily committed to mental health facilities by probate judges.

However, officials with the Alabama Department of Mental Health said the bill isn’t needed because juvenile courts have jurisdiction over 18-year-olds.

There is not a gap in service per the letter of the law as to who has jurisdiction, mental health spokeswoman Malissa Valdes-Hubert said in an email Tuesday.

“ … should SB330 pass, a jurisdictional conflict would be created giving juvenile and probate courts jurisdiction to commit mentally ill or intellectually disabled 18-year-olds to the Department of Mental Health,” Valdes-Hubert said. “The department maintains the position that 18-year-olds are better served in juvenile court than probate court with adults.”

Valdes-Hubert said the department has committed to provide training on the law to stakeholders in the Florence area and to holding meetings to determine if additional steps need to be taken to ensure 18-year-olds are receiving the proper services.

A fiscal note on the bill says it would increase costs for the Alabama Department of Mental Health by an undetermined amount that would depend on the number of 18-year-olds committed, their diagnosis and needed treatment.

The bill has passed the Senate and will be in the House Judiciary Committee today.

The Department of Mental Health did not have a comment on Melson’s bill, a spokeswoman said Tuesday. The Department of Human Resources didn't respond Tuesday to a request for comment.

Lauderdale County Probate Judge Will Motlow said this week something needs to be done to make sure 18-year-olds get quick, appropriate mental health care.

“We haven’t had a situation where it’s ended in a tragedy, but it could,” he said. “We just want to make sure these 18-year-olds aren’t falling through the cracks. Whatever that takes, we’re in favor of.”

Full Article & Source:
Bill would allow probate judges to commit 18-year-olds

Senator Kirk Calls On VA Inspector General To Open Investigations Into Mental Health Treatment in Illinois VA Hospitals

Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission Finds Forced Administration Of Medication To Combat Mental Health Illness

WASHINGTON –(ENEWSPF)–July 8, 2016.  U.S. Senator Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) today sent a letter to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Inspector General Michael Missal on recent investigations into VA hospitals in Illinois. The Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission found that rights violations were committed against Illinois veterans with disabilities at the Edward Hines Jr. and Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Hospitals. Senator Kirk called on Inspector General Missal to address and investigate reports of forced administration of medication without direct correlation to a veteran’s mental health needs and the issuance of criminal citations for a veteran exhibiting mental health related behavioral symptoms.

“Our veterans, especially those seeking treatment for mental health issues, deserve the best health care available and must be treated with dignity,” said Senator Kirk. “Addressing disturbing reports of violations at VA facilities should remain a top priority for IG Missal and receive immediate attention. Mistreatment of veterans at the VA is unacceptable.”

The full text of the letter is below:

July 8, 2016

The Honorable Michael Missal
Inspector General
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C.  20420

Dear Mr. Missal,

Please find enclosed the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission’s recent investigations into ongoing rights violations committed against Illinois veterans with disabilities at the Edward Hines Jr. and Jesse Brown Veterans Affairs Hospitals.

The Commission is particularly concerned with the forced administration of psychotropic medication, sometimes with VA police presence, without adequate cause to a veteran’s mental health needs and the issuance of criminal citations for a veteran exhibiting mental health related behavioral symptoms.  As the Commission explains it, the VA Hospitals use the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (405 ILCS 5/2-107) to involuntarily commit veterans, however, they fail to uphold the same Code’s rights protections for these veterans.

The Guardianship and Advocacy Commission was created to protect the rights and promote the welfare of Illinois disabled citizens.  I am confident you share my concerns over the violations the Commission has investigated and ask that you open an investigation.   Specifically, please focus on the following questions:

1. The report details a complaint where VA police were present during the administration of medication “to hold the patient (sic) down if he refused.”  What is the VA policy regarding the involvement of VA police officers in the administration of treatments with patients?

2. As a federal agency, what is the standard for VA facilities to follow state laws that govern how patients in mental health units must be treated and how medications are administered?  This report suggests that violations of Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (405 ILCS 5/2-107) occurred when staff administered forced psychiatric medication to veterans.  Were the rights of the Illinois veterans mentioned in this report violated while in the care of the VA hospitals?  What Illinois and federal laws, as well as VA policies, were overstepped or disobeyed by the VA health care professionals or the VA police officers during the incidents described in the report?

3. This report indicates that staff in the Behavioral Health Unit at Hines VA Hospital “have stated that forced medications are given on an emergency basis at the first sign of agitation.”  The report states that upon investigation in Authority case #14-030-9023, the veteran did not meet the standard for dangerousness before forced medication was administered.  What is the VA policy for administrating emergency medication without veteran consent?  What assessments are employed to determine if/when a veteran is exhibiting dangerous or self-harming behavior requiring emergency medical intervention?  Is there a VA standard for such assessments? What training is VA staff provided to identify these behaviors?

4. This report includes testimony from a VA physician who states “I wouldn’t use emergency medications at all.  But these are trained killers.”   Is this standard VA policy when interacting with veterans with mental illness?

5. This report states that upon investigation in Authority case #15-030-9003, the Jesse Brown VA Hospital inappropriately issued a criminal citation for a veteran who exhibited behaviors related to his documented mental illness.  This report indicates this is a direct violation of protection guaranteed by the Illinois Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities Code (405 ILCS 4/1 et eq.)  Were the rights of the Illinois veterans mentioned in the report violated while in the care of the VA hospitals?  What Illinois laws or policies were overstepped or disobeyed by the VA health care professionals or the VA police officers during the incidents described in the report?

6. The Commission states that “attempts to resolve the violations at these hospitals have either been unsuccessful or ignored.”  Additionally, this report states that “even after repeated requests the VA has failed to respond to these substantiated findings of rights violations for Illinois veterans with disabilities,” and that the two above mentioned cases were closed and published without any VA response. Why was there no response by the VA to these reports?  What action has the leadership at Hines and Jesse Brown VA hospitals taken to address the Commission’s concerns and recommendations?  Does the VA have a policy in place requiring response to state investigations based on violations against veterans in the VA’s care?

7. There is a reported practice of issuing criminal citations to in-patient veterans with mental illness.  This report indicates that the Commission’s Legal Advocacy Service Program has represented veterans at both Hines and Jesse Brown VA in involuntary commitment and court ordered medication hearings, one of which the veteran could not attend his hearing due to his in-patient status in the VA Behavioral Health Unit, but it took painstaking steps by the legal team to get the citation dropped so the veteran patient would not be held in contempt.  What are the VA policies governing VA police issuing criminal citations to veterans on the premises of VA hospitals, and most importantly, those veterans who are receiving in-patient treatment?

I am concerned that these practices may be widespread and only thanks to the Illinois Guardianship and Advocacy Commission these violations were uncovered.  Veterans with mental health problems should not be treated with less respect or without protections of their rights. Finally, I request that the VA establish a working relationship with state agencies like the Commission who provide important services to our less fortunate and disabled veterans.  The wellbeing and humane treatment of veterans in need of mental health care is of vital importance.  Federal and state agencies should be working together in the best interest of our nation’s heroes.

I look forward to receiving timely updates on your investigation and learning of your findings and recommendations to protect the rights of veterans who are seeking or in need of treatment at a Behavior Health Unit at Hines and Jesse Brown VA Hospitals.

I appreciate you opening an investigation into these allegations.

Sincerely,
Mark Kirk
United States Senator

Source: http://www.kirk.senate.gov

Full Article & Source:
Senator Kirk Calls On VA Inspector General To Open Investigations Into Mental Health Treatment in Illinois VA Hospitals

14 Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors in Medical School Taught Us

Dr. Gary Kohls

Myth # 1:

“The FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) tests all new psychiatric drugs”

False. Actually the FDA only reviews studies that were designed, administered, secretly performed and paid for by the multinational profit-driven drug companies. The studies are frequently farmed out by the pharmaceutical companies by well-paid research firms, in whose interest it is to find positive results for their corporate employers. Unsurprisingly, such research policies virtually guarantee fraudulent results.
Myth # 2:

“FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is effective long-term”

False. Actually, FDA approval doesn’t even mean that psychiatric drugs have been proven to be safe – either short-term or long-term! The notion that FDA approval means that a psych drug has been proven to be effective is also a false one, for most such drugs are never tested – prior to marketing – for longer than a few months (and most psych patients take their drugs for years). The pharmaceutical industry pays many psychiatric “researchers” – often academic psychiatrists (with east access to compliant, chronic, already drugged-up patients) who have financial or professional conflicts of interest – some of them even sitting on FDA advisory committees who attempt to “fast track” psych drugs through the approval process. For each new drug application, the FDA only receives 1 or 2 of the “best” studies (out of many) that purport to show short-term effectiveness. The negative studies are shelved and not revealed to the FDA. In the case of the SSRI drugs, animal lab studies typically lasted only hours, days or weeks and the human clinical studies only lasted, on average, 4- 6 weeks, far too short to draw any valid conclusions about long-term effectiveness or safety!

Hence the FDA, prescribing physicians and patient-victims should not have been “surprised” by the resulting epidemic of SSRI drug-induced adverse reactions that are silently plaguing the nation. Indeed, many SSRI trials have shown that those drugs are barely more effective than placebo (albeit statistically significant!) with unaffordable economic costs and serious health risks, some of which are life-threatening and known to be capable of causing brain damage.
Myth # 3:

 “FDA approval means that a psychotropic drug is safe long-term”

False. Actually, the SSRIs and the “anti-psychotic” drugs are usually tested in human trials for only a couple of months before being granted marketing approval by the FDA. And the drug companies are only required to report 1 or 2 studies (even if many other studies on the same drug showed negative, even disastrous,  results). Drug companies obviously prefer that the black box and fine print warnings associated with their drugs are ignored by both consumers and prescribers. One only has to note how small the print is on the commercials.

In our fast-paced shop-until-you-drop consumer society, we super-busy prescribing physicians and physician assistants have never been fully aware of the multitude of dangerous, potentially fatal adverse psych drug effects that include addiction, mania, psychosis, suicidality, worsening depression, worsening anxiety, insomnia, akathisia, brain damage, dementia, homicidality, violence, etc, etc.
But when was the last time anybody heard the FDA or Big Pharma apologize for the damage they did in the past? And when was the last time there were significant punishments (other than writs slaps and “chump change” multimillion dollar fines) or prison time for the CEOs of the guilty multibillion dollar drug companies?  (Continue Reading)

Full Article & Source:
14 Lies That Our Psychiatry Professors in Medical School Taught Us

Man faces charges in beating at Oakwood

A Suffolk judge on Friday ordered the re-evaluation of a man’s mental competency to stand trial over the alleged assault of a 92-year-old woman inside now-closed Oakwood Assisted Living.

According to Circuit Court filings, William Keith Ruffin, exactly two years ago Saturday and then 42 years old, responded to internal voices when he allegedly beat Violet Compton nearly to death.

Ruffin had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and schizoaffective disorder and has abused crack cocaine, alcohol and marijuana, according to the court documents, which stated he had told investigators he had been napping in his room at the East Washington Street facility, when “he began to hear voices in his head.”

The voices told him, “Get up N—!” “The people” were “trying to take his face,” the voices said.

Ruffin told investigators that he thought Compton was one of the main people “trying to take his face off.”

Arriving at the facility about 6:12 p.m., first-responders found Compton “severely beaten and injured” after Ruffin “(beat) her about her face and head with (his) fists.” She was airlifted to Sentara Norfolk General Hospital.

Charged with aggravated malicious wounding, Ruffin has since been remanded to Western Tidewater Regional Jail in Suffolk and Central State Hospital in Petersburg, where staff have been working on his psychological rehabilitation.

His first hospitalization, according to court filings, was in 1999, and the pattern has been “involuntary psychiatric admission,” court-ordered medical treatment, improvement, but then relapse into substance abuse upon discharge.

Court filings describe two contacts with Western Tidewater Community Services Board. On March 26, 2012, he presented with “somatic delusions,” but improved “with support and being able to share his feelings;” he received an injection of Invega Sustenna, used in the treatment of schizophrenia, but resisted taking his anti-depressant Zoloft.

Ruffin’s second contact with board staff was on April 2, 2012 — three days before Compton was beaten at Oakwood — when “there was no indication given that he was suicidal or homicidal.”

At the beginning of February, concerned that his responses to questions indicated poor mental health, Judge Carl E. Eason Jr. declined to accept Ruffin’s not-guilty plea, and ordered the first evaluation of his competency to stand trial.

When Ruffin was later back before the court with his “competency restored,” doubts arose over whether he was still receiving, inside the jail, the same medications the state hospital had prescribed, Eason said in court Friday.

As a sheriff’s deputy escorted him into the courtroom, Ruffin gazed into the public gallery with an unfocused stare.

Full Article & Source:
Man faces charges in beating at Oakwood

Virginia mental health: Lawmakers have yet to see report on Deeds attack

More than two weeks ago, Doug Bevelacqua resigned from his position in charge of "The Bath County Critical Incident Report" for Virginia's Office of the State Inspector General claiming that his work had been censored.

The report, not yet released, details the November 2013 stabbing of state Sen. Creigh Deeds by his mentally ill son, Gus, who subsequently took his own life. "If I had been writing it, it would have been out two months ago," Bevelacqua said in a phone interview with the Daily Press.

In his resignation letter, Bevelacqua objected to deletions from the report, including a reference to Department of Behavioral Health inaction following his 2012 report about failed temporary detention orders contributing to the incident, and Sen. Deeds' statement that the system had failed.

"The facts will remain. While accurate, they're not useful to policymakers," Bevelacqua said, citing the need to make the connection to "what should be," rather than simply "what is."

State Inspector General Michael Morehart said Bevelacqua's report would be released soon. "Maybe in a week, but I can't guarantee it. The report is effectively done," he said.

Morehart attributed its delayed release to an investigation by the Virginia State Police, who are looking into possible criminal charges. "I apologize for the delay. We were asked to hold off. We don't want to interfere with them," Morehart said.

Corinne Geller, a spokeswoman for the Virginia State Police, said the criminal investigation is "parallel and separate from the OSIG's." She wasn't able to estimate a timeline for its completion, but said when it's finished it will be turned over to the commonwealth's attorney's office for consideration of any future action.

Full Article & Source:
Virginia mental health: Lawmakers have yet to see report on Deeds attack

Lawyer barred from practicing for mental health issues

Minneapolis lawyer Jill Eleanor Clark has been forbidden from practicing law for being "unable to competently represent clients because of mental health issues."

Clark, 56, of Golden Valley has been placed on "disability inactive" status by the state Supreme Court, which rules on attorney discipline cases.

"There is overwhelming evidence in the record that Clark has a serious mental health condition," the Supreme Court order, made public Wednesday, said.

Details of her condition were placed under seal, but some specifics emerged.

Her medical records show that "she suffered from extreme stress and anxiety during long stretches of 2012, and that this stress and anxiety severely affected her cognitive abilities and judgment."

On two occasions, she went "on the run" because of emotional crises, once leaving town for 10 days and once for three weeks, the order said. She was hospitalized three times during those crises.

Clark did not dispute that she had mental issues, the order said. She was temporarily suspended in January.

In July 2012, Clark filed a motion to disqualify the entire Supreme Court from ruling on her case. The court denied the motion.

Full Article and Source:
Lawyer barred from practicing for mental health issues