Re: Release of Patients Rece

[mozley@darius.pet.upenn.edu (P. David Mozley)]

>The patient could be involuntarily committed if two physicians agree that
>(1) the patient is mentally ill, (2) the patient is a danger to himself or
>others, and (3) the patient's condition can be ameliorated by treatment.

>Dave Scherer
>scherer@uiuc.edu
>
This is only correct if the underlying condition and the proposed treatment
are exclusively psychiatric.  It is not true for any other medical problem,
even in patients with a pre-existing psychiatric disorders.  Health care
professionals are required to use a parallel, non-mental health court
system to coerce a patient into accepting medical or surgical treatment,
including quarantine.

Incidentally, "ameliorated by treatment" is not a direct issue.  The public
hospitals are filled with people who are chronically dangerous to
themselves for whom there are no effective treatments.  Rumors of
inappropriate de-institutionalization continue to be exagerated.

>(The imminent danger standard usually means homocidal or suicidal
>tendancies.  I-131 contamination would probably not qualify.)

In my opinion, this should be correct.  Unfortunately, nobody cares about
my opinion.  Despite my objections, the government holds that people above
the 5 rem/hr level constitute a danger to the public.  If they didn't, then
Texas would not be having so much trouble with the bureaucrats for trying
to treat people as outpatients.  Cats would not be suffering and dying of
Grave's disease because their owners can not afford to pay for 80 days of
quarentine post treatment or tolerate the emotional trauma of a long
separation from their pets.  Blah blah blah.  Point is, either there is a
threshold level of dangerousness which justifies 3rd party payers incuring
the (high) costs of inpatient hospitalization, or there aint.  If the court
releases the patient who presents the case in point, that is their
perogative.  If you do not petition the court to consider the matter, then
it seems like your omission could be considered to be recklessly
endangering the public.

Incidentally, homocidality or suicidality is by no means the only standard.
Loss of function is explicitly legislated as sufficient in most state
laws.