Danger to self or others

Pete Earley tells us the story of why we have to be a danger to self or others before commitment. As you can probably guess, it comes down to a man who was involuntarily committed for years because of his illness, though he wasn't dangerous. He fought back, and eventually won freedom.

There had to be something done. Back then, men and women were committed because of mental illness, but also some people were committed because they were a pain in the butt. There are all sorts of horror stories about wives thrown into institutions because the husband was cheating and wanted a "free" life of his own.

But only putting people in hospitals when they are "dangerous" has become a dangerous proposition on its own. Sometimes you're not obviously a danger to self or others, but it's truly obvious you need help. My mom used to walk naked around the city walking an invisible dog, but I couldn't get her committed. She was always so eloquent before the judges. She never seemed sick, but there was a history of bizarre behavior. Or she would try to kill herself but be released because she was no longer a danger. Made so much sense.

"Over the years, states began to lessen criteria, in part, because persons who were clearly mentally incapacitated where literally dying on the streets because they were not dangerous and they were not getting any meaningful treatment or services. This is where criteria, such as “gravely disabled” or “unable to care for self or others” came into play. The court’s “without more” ambiguous language provided the states with a opening that could be used to add these lesser criteria.

As the Fairfax father discovered, many judges, especially those with a strong civil rights background, refuse to consider anything but dangerousness when an ill person is brought before them– even if it means releasing someone who is clearly psychotic — even if it means putting their lives in jeopardy."

Yep.