WSJ: A Doctor's Fight: More Forced Care For the Mentally Ill

  • Thread starter Thread starter Miklos
  • Start date Start date
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
M

Miklos

Strong Medicine
A Doctor's Fight: More Forced Care For the Mentally Ill --- Torrey's
Push for State Laws Sparks Growing Debate Over Rights of Patients ---
Mr. Hadd Goes Underground
By Mark Fritz

1 February 2006

Copyright The Wall Street Journal

Every other week, Jeff Demann drives to a clinic in rural Michigan,
drops his pants and gets a shot of an antipsychotic drug that he says
makes him sick.

"If I don't show up, the cops show up at my door and I wind up in a
mental ward," says the unemployed 44-year-old, who lives on disability
in Holland, Mich.

Mr. Demann's routine reflects a national trend toward forcing people
with psychotic tendencies to get treatment -- even if they haven't
committed violent acts. Driving the trend are E. Fuller Torrey, a
68-year-old maverick psychiatrist who believes the laws help prevent
crime, and memorabilia mogul Ted Stanley, who has contributed millions
of dollars to the cause.

Dr. Torrey keeps an online database with hundreds of grisly anecdotes
about mentally ill people who killed the innocent. They include a
jobless drifter who pushed an aspiring screenwriter in front of a
subway train and a farmer who shot a 19-year-old receptionist to
death. Influenced by such stories, Michigan, New York, Florida and
California are among the states that have toughened their
mental-health treatment laws since 1998, when Dr. Torrey formed the
Treatment Advocacy Center to lobby for forced care.

The laws have become the subject of a heated debate among
mental-health specialists, with some seeing a threat to civil rights.
"There should be a high standard before you take someone else's
liberty," says Tammy Seltzer, senior staff attorney for the Bazelon
Center for Mental Health Law, a Florida nonprofit group that has
fought the Treatment Advocacy Center in statehouses nationwide. Others
say the connection between mental illness and violence isn't as
well-established as Dr. Torrey's anecdotes imply.

Mary Zdanowicz, executive director of Dr. Torrey's center, retorts
that such opponents "want to preserve a person's right to be
psychotic."

It has long been common for states to compel people to undergo
psychiatric evaluation after they have committed acts of violence. If
mental illness is confirmed, they are likely to end up in the
psychiatric ward of a prison or hospital.

Dr. Torrey was a key adviser to the National Alliance on Mental
Illness when it began lobbying in the early 1980s for laws that would
permit states to impose treatment on people even if they hadn't done
something violent. The number of states to adopt such laws has jumped
from 25 in 1998 -- when Dr. Torrey and Mr. Stanley created their own,
more aggressive organization -- to 42 currently. Those targeted by the
laws usually are people picked up for behaving strangely in public,
threatening family members, or refusing to take prescribed medication
after being released from a psychiatric ward.

The laws are enforced haphazardly, sometimes because of inadequate
funding or opposition from mental-health activists. Implementation
varies not just from state to state, but from county to county and
judge to judge. Many mental-health departments already are
overburdened with existing patients and have little interest in
pushing police to round up more people to throw into the system.

It isn't clear whether the laws have led to an increase in the number
of people receiving forced care. Roughly 250,000 people in 1997 who
weren't institutionalized or jailed were forcibly evaluated, monitored
and sometimes medicated, according to federal statistics. Federal
health officials have begun a six-month study to update that figure.

California passed a forced-treatment law in 2003 after Dr. Torrey's
group pushed for it but has yet to use it on anyone. Researchers say
only about eight to 10 states frequently use their laws. Still, it is
clear that Dr. Torrey's movement marks a shift in how the U.S. treats
the mentally ill.

Beginning in the 1950s, the emergence of behavior-stabilizing
medications helped spur a 40-year movement to shut down huge asylums
and free their inhabitants. Emptying institutions was supposed to be
accompanied by the creation of community-based mental-health programs,
treatment centers, and housing and job opportunities.

But local programs didn't have the money, political will or expertise
to handle the deluge. The result was a flood of mentally ill people on
the streets and in jails.

In recent years, governments have spent more on community-based
programs and a raft of new antipsychotic drugs have come on the
market. Still, many mentally ill go without care, either because there
isn't a program to treat them or because they don't want help.

Dr. Torrey, whose sister suffers from schizophrenia, was working as a
psychiatrist at St. Elizabeth's Hospital in Washington, D.C., in the
1970s when the district enacted one of the earliest involuntary
outpatient programs. Before the law, patients were discharged dozens
of times with medication, which they quickly threw away, Dr. Torrey
says. With the law, he says, "we would have guys come in for an
injection."

The author of 15 books and hundreds of papers, Dr. Torrey was an
assistant to the director for the National Institute of Mental Health
and worked at a mental-health clinic for the homeless for 15 years. He
is well-known in psychiatry for his iconoclastic views on a range of
subjects. He has theorized that schizophrenia is an infectious disease
triggered by environmental factors.

One of Dr. Torrey's books on schizophrenia caught the eye of a wealthy
businessman, Ted Stanley, whose son, Jonathan, became delusional
during college and later was diagnosed with bipolar disease.

Jonathan Stanley says he accosted people on the street and believed he
was being trailed by Naval Intelligence. He says he was arrested when
he stood naked atop a milk crate in a Manhattan diner, trying to avoid
the lethal radiation he thought was bombarding him from a satellite
dish across the street.
 
The elder Mr. Stanley contacted Dr. Torrey in 1989 and ultimately
opened his checkbook to create the Stanley Medical Research Institute
in Bethesda, Md. "He said he'd like to help," Dr. Torrey recalls. "He
said: `We thought we would start with a million dollars -- a year.' "

Mr. Stanley, 74, runs MBI Inc., a Connecticut seller of collectible
and commemorative books, coins, figurines and other memorabilia. Its
units include the Danbury Mint. Since the 1980s, Mr. Stanley says he
has donated nearly $300 million -- including about $35 million in 2005
-- to Dr. Torrey's efforts, the bulk of it for research at
universities and start-up drug companies.

In 1998, Dr. Torrey and the Stanleys decided to target state laws that
they believed had gone too far in guaranteeing rights for the mentally
unstable. They founded the Treatment Advocacy Center in Arlington, Va.
Mr. Stanley and his wife, Vada, support it with about $600,000 a year.
In many states, the center and its allies try to put a face on a
proposed law and link it to a grieving family.

Dr. Torrey says the laws are aimed at a minority of mentally ill who
refuse to take medication. Some believe they aren't sick at all.
Others agree they have problems but believe the downside of taking
drugs outweighs the benefit because the drugs can have serious mental
and physical side effects. Dr. Torrey says failing to control
psychotic tendencies can be dangerous. "I catch heat for linking
violence with mental illness. This is about as politically incorrect
as you can get," he says at his office in Bethesda.

The center soon zeroed in on New York. Some mental-health
professionals had been lobbying unsuccessfully for a decade to enact a
forced-treatment law. Then came the death of Kendra Webdale, a
32-year-old receptionist and aspiring screenwriter.

On Jan. 3, 1999, Andrew Goldstein, a jobless college dropout, pushed
Ms. Webdale in front of a Manhattan subway train. The 29-year-old Mr.
Goldstein, who had a history of schizophrenia and violent assaults,
blamed his illness and failure to get medication. Amid a public
uproar, New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer contacted the
Treatment Advocacy Center for help in drafting a response.

Less than a month later, Mr. Spitzer announced his support for
"Kendra's Law." The law allowed the state to force outpatient
treatment on people if they were judged a potential danger to
themselves or others. At a news conference, the attorney general
introduced a man who had come to grips with his illness and his denial
of it, received treatment and gone back to school. He now was a lawyer
for the Treatment Advocacy Center.

"I am Jonathan Stanley and I'm one of the people this law was designed
to help," the younger Mr. Stanley said.

Seven months after the slaying the New York state legislature passed
"Kendra's Law," allocating $52 million to finance it. In a nod to
opponents, the law was subject for renewal in five years.

From 1999 to 2004, more than 10,000 people were investigated for
acting strangely, most of them in New York City, with nearly 4,000
forced into outpatient treatment.

When New York's law was up for renewal last year, there were sharp
differences over whether it was a success. A state report said the law
led to a drop in homelessness and arrests among those receiving forced
treatment. John A. Gresham of New York Lawyers for the Public Interest
says the law was applied unfairly, with a disproportionate number of
African-Americans forced into care.

As they have elsewhere, opponents said the money would be better spent
on those who are seeking care, not refusing it. New York state
lawmakers extended "Kendra's Law" for another five years.

In Michigan, Dr. Torrey's group enlisted the aid of the parents of
24-year-old Kevin Heisinger, a college student beaten to death in 2000
at a Kalamazoo bus station by a Vietnam veteran with a history of
schizophrenia. A year later a proposed "Kevin's Law" was unveiled.

In Florida, the group teamed with the Seminole County sheriff after a
plumber who was diagnosed as mentally ill wounded two deputies in 1998
and shot another to death. They quickly won the lobbying clout of the
Florida Sheriff's Association.

In California, a law backed by the Treatment Advocacy Center passed
the Assembly in 2000 but was rejected by the Senate. Then on Jan. 10,
2001, a deranged catfish farmer went on a rampage in a small Northern
California town, killing three people and igniting public outrage.
Backers reintroduced the legislation as "Laura's Law," after
19-year-old Laura Wilcox, the youngest of the victims.

"We added a face to this issue and we may have been instrumental in
getting it passed," says Laura's father, Nick Wilcox.

California lawmakers hired Rand Corp. to study pre-emptive outpatient
treatment in other places. The research group said there was little
evidence the idea worked, although the reasons varied. In some cases
laws weren't enforced. Rand also said some mental-health facilities
saw the laws mainly as a liability shield rather than as a therapeutic
tool. By signing up a mentally ill person for forced care after
discharge, the facilities could protect themselves against lawsuits by
anyone the ill person might injure.

Ultimately, California in 2003 passed "Laura's Law." But the nation's
largest state allocated no money and forbade counties from shifting
resources from other mental-health programs. The law has yet to be
used. In 2004, California voters approved a 1% tax on people with
incomes of at least $1 million to be used for mental-health programs,
and Dr. Torrey's group wants to see some of that go for Laura's Law.

Michigan and Florida experienced similar battles. Their laws didn't go
into effect until last year. Florida has had only about a dozen cases
of involuntary outpatient commitments, says John Petrila, chairman of
the Department of Mental Health Law & Policy at the Florida Mental
Health Institute.

Still, the laws are having an effect on some people. Gabriel Hadd, a
26-year-old unemployed musician from Saginaw, Mich., was diagnosed as
schizophrenic. He says he has been repeatedly forced to take drugs he
believes do more harm than good.

Mr. Hadd spent part of the past year hiding out in the home of a
Colorado woman who is part of an underground network of mentally ill
activists. The program was set up in late 2004 by MindFreedom
International, an Oregon organization of 10,000 mentally ill people
that opposes coerced drug treatment.

Mr. Hadd says his mother falsely accused him of threatening to commit
a violent crime. She couldn't be located for comment. "They can accuse
you of all sorts of things," Mr. Hadd says. "I was in a courtroom,
drooling and twitching from the drugs." He recently slipped back in
Michigan and says he is trying to maintain a low profile.

T.J. Bucholz, a spokesman for Michigan's Department of Community
Health, says data on the program's use aren't available yet but
anecdotally counties and judges seem to be using it sparingly. "The
law has not been used maybe as much as we anticipated," he says.

Mr. Demann, the 44-year-old Holland, Mich., man, says he has been in
and out of institutions since 1987. That is when he was diagnosed as
schizophrenic after he broke up with his girlfriend and accidentally
overdosed on her antianxiety pills, he says.

Branded as suicidal yet constantly refusing medication, Mr. Demann
says mental-health authorities are forcing him to take a drug,
Risperdal, that he says causes him to be moody, angry, restless and
depressed. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2004 found that
Risperdal and some other antipsychotic drugs can increase the
incidence of diabetes. Mr. Demann agrees he needs therapy but doesn't
want drugs.

"I don't believe in putting this stuff into my body," Mr. Demann says.
"It's time for the system to let me go."
 
Here in NY, we've had this program in place for quite a while (AOT). Patients are usually quite resistant to being placed into this program, and we often have to testify in court in order to get the order. The truth is that the revolving door effect is an unbelievable burdon on the taxpayers, and this, coupled with a history of violence makes the process reasonable. It seems that patients, even when they have insight, simply refuse to take the medication, decompensate, and wind up back in the hospital, arrested, or worse.

Overall, the incidence of schizophrenics engaging in violent acts does not differ from the general population. I'm too lazy to find the forensic statistics right now....However, that doesn't mean that if someone has a propensity toward violence secondary to a psychiatric condition, and if that risk can be reduced with treatment, that it shouldn't occur.

The reality is that many of these patients become difficult or impossible to track once they leave the hospital, and they fall through the cracks. We need to find a completely new form of medication that is not injectable, lasts longer than our typical depots, and is effective, preferably with antidotes for reversal in case of adverse effects or change in mental condition. Any ideas? Perhaps some sort of norplant type device?
 
I think this is one of the most serious plights (plite?)sp? of psychiatry today. We can't force our patients to take meds unless they fall under this law, however, they often lack the insight needed to determine whether or not they should be on it to prevent decomps. Also, many that are controlled believe they don't need it anymore - which ends up in the same cycle over and over again.

How are praciticing psychs dealing with this? Are you finding yourself morally challenged by this act? What about patients that lose insight after getting treated, aside of encouragement how do you deal with this?

Depots are a bit sketchy too since they last so long, what about a patients right to refuse being under treatment at a later date or changing their mind and not being able to?
 
Poety said:
I think this is one of the most serious plights (plite?)sp? of psychiatry today. We can't force our patients to take meds unless they fall under this law, however, they often lack the insight needed to determine whether or not they should be on it to prevent decomps. Also, many that are controlled believe they don't need it anymore - which ends up in the same cycle over and over again.

The patients do not have the choice about whether or not to accept AOT in New York. It is determined by a judge based on psychiatrist submissions and possibly court testimony. This prevents the patients rejecting it outright, which most would of course, do.

How are praciticing psychs dealing with this? Are you finding yourself morally challenged by this act? What about patients that lose insight after getting treated, aside of encouragement how do you deal with this?
No morally challenging at all. In fact, families of the patients are often the ones begging for something to be done for their chronic family member who refuses to take meds. Since the program is not something the patients volunteer for, it doesn't matter if they lose insight, as mentioned above.

Depots are a bit sketchy too since they last so long, what about a patients right to refuse being under treatment at a later date or changing their mind and not being able to?
Depots are grossly underused. Patients are often made to take medication against their will, based on certain legal circumstances. We are always going to courst for "T-O-O" (treatment over objection).
 
There is a lot of work being done on new dosage forms for delivery of these and other medications due to compliance issues. The advent of permeable membranes for topical delivery has allowed lengthened intervals for many forms of medications. Although the technology is not applicable in your situation right now, the research in dissolution, layering, and absorptive capabilities of various parts of the body may allow for easier delivery of medications. Reversal is a difficult issue anytime dosing intervals are lengthened. Additionally, we have found in pharmacy, newer dosage forms often lead to creative forms of abuse (withdrawing the fentanyl from a long acting patch or crushing Adderall or Concerta). Overall, however, the benefits outweigh the negatives which is why so much research is being put in finding new ways to deliver drugs. Compliance is a tremendously difficult problem in all of medicine, however, in your patients it often has destructive & tragic outcomes.
 
sdn1977 said:
There is a lot of work being done on new dosage forms for delivery of these and other medications due to compliance issues. The advent of permeable membranes for topical delivery has allowed lengthened intervals for many forms of medications. Although the technology is not applicable in your situation right now, the research in dissolution, layering, and absorptive capabilities of various parts of the body may allow for easier delivery of medications. Reversal is a difficult issue anytime dosing intervals are lengthened. Additionally, we have found in pharmacy, newer dosage forms often lead to creative forms of abuse (withdrawing the fentanyl from a long acting patch or crushing Adderall or Concerta). Overall, however, the benefits outweigh the negatives which is why so much research is being put in finding new ways to deliver drugs. Compliance is a tremendously difficult problem in all of medicine, however, in your patients it often has destructive & tragic outcomes.

True, True. The future of psychiatry will see a lot more "patch" forms of medications. A selegiline patch will hit market sometime soon.

Borrowing from pain management, I propose a haldol lollipop (satisfies the oral fixations as well, not unlike the fentanyl lollipop users) :meanie:

Also, a risperdal "tattoo" that has 10 year long-acting ink. The tattoo can be any picture of the patient's choosing! 👍
 
Anasazi23 said:
True, True. The future of psychiatry will see a lot more "patch" forms of medications. A selegiline patch will hit market sometime soon.

Borrowing from pain management, I propose a haldol lollipop (satisfies the oral fixations as well, not unlike the fentanyl lollipop users) :meanie:

Also, a risperdal "tattoo" that has 10 year long-acting ink. The tattoo can be any picture of the patient's choosing! 👍


What would be the reasons someone is put under the AOT act Sazi? I can understand acutely - but I may have issues with forcing someone to take meds for extended periods of time - it just seems like I'm imposing something on someone that I shouldn't be doing. I mean just because you're mentally ill does that mean you don't have the right to refuse treatment? What if you don't want to get treated? Like I said, I can udnerstand short term when you're a threat to yourself or society, but to permanently do it? I just dont know.
 
FYI Here's information from a Western state that has non-emergent Court Ordered Treatment. The four indications for involuntary treatment are:

DTS
DTO
PAD - Persistently or acutely disabled (essentially the topic of this thread)
GD - Gravely Disabled (generally used for severe cognitive disorders in our state)

To determine persistent or acute disability:

Does the patient have a severe mental disorder that, if not treated, has a substantial probability of causing the person to suffer or continue to suffer severe and abnormal mental, emotional, or physical harm that significantly impairs judgment, reason, behavior or capacity to recognize reality?

Does the severe mental disorder substantially impair the person's capacity to make an informed decision regarding treatment?

Does this impairment cause the person to be incapable of understanding and expressing an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of accepting treatment, and understanding and expressing an understanding of the alternatives to the particular treatment offered?

Is there a reasonable prospect that the severe mental disorder is treatable by outpatient, inpatient or combined inpatient and outpatient treatment?




If found PAD the court mandates treatment for 1 year, not to exceed 6 months of inpatient. Patient is obligated to attend clinic visits and take medications as prescribed. Provider is obligated to provide sufficient case management and follow up for the patient.
 
Anasazi23 said:
True, True. The future of psychiatry will see a lot more "patch" forms of medications. A selegiline patch will hit market sometime soon.

Borrowing from pain management, I propose a haldol lollipop (satisfies the oral fixations as well, not unlike the fentanyl lollipop users) :meanie:

Also, a risperdal "tattoo" that has 10 year long-acting ink. The tattoo can be any picture of the patient's choosing! 👍

:laugh: I love it - especially the tattoo! No stigma with taking a daily dose of a medication (notwithstanding any stigmas associated with tattoos!). Would we pharmacists add tattooing as an additional dispensing option or is the "parlor located" in medical offices. Don't limit yourself - how about piercings? - just think about the possibilities! 😉

I think you could have a future as a medical consultant to pharmaceutical companies if you decide to give up clinical medicine! 😀

(sorry! I probably shouldn't joke about this!)
 
for anyone interested in some good reading on the ethics of involuntary interventions look up Patricia Backlar from Portland State U. I really enjoyed her edited book Ethics in Community Mental Health Care. The chapters on invloluntary interventions (anything from corced medication to inpatient lock-up) give a very good framework for how to balance patient rights with treatment needs.

Additionally, if you look her work up on Pubmed she's done a lot of stuff with Psychiatric Advanced Directives.
 
vesper9 said:
Additionally, if you look her work up on Pubmed she's done a lot of stuff with Psychiatric Advanced Directives.

Thanks for the info.

Incidentally, even reading the word "psychiatric advanced directives" makes my skin crawl at this point. I have a visceral reaction to the paperowork involved with these nonsensical forms. In theory, they're good ideas, in the JCAHO obsessed world and the demand to have them filled out on admit makes me crazy in reality.

😡
 
Top Bottom