Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site cmu-cs-cad.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!rochester!cmu-cs-pt!cmu-cs-cad!mjc
From: mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio)
Newsgroups: net.suicide
Subject: civil liberties, law, etc
Message-ID: <243@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 18:09:08 EST
Article-I.D.: cmu-cs-c.243
Posted: Thu Jan 17 18:09:08 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 01:32:11 EST
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 57

In the midst of my flaming I seem to have left out a few relevant facts.
Sorry.

From: hollombe@ttidcc.UUCP ? (Jerry Hollombe)
>Here, IF you can demonstrate a person is a  clear  and  present  danger  to
>themselves  (or  others)  you  can PROBABLY get them put on a 72 hour hold.

I was talking about people who had actually attempted suicide, rather than
people who are a risk but haven't done anything.

>The patient must be represented by counsel at this hearing 

Here I think that is the patient's option, but, while the law is nice and
clear on such things, hospital staffs can circumvent it easily.  Your doctor
can take away your phone privileges, for instance.  Don't laugh; I've seen it
happen to people.

>As for calling the ACLU, most  wards  have  pay-phones  accessible  to  the
>patients.  

Quite true.  A friend of mine tried to call a lawyer from one once; though he
had been told that phone calls were private, when he started to talk 
a staff member appeared from the nearby office and ripped the phone out
of his hands.  His phone privileges were subsequently taken away.  Yes, he
was breaking a rule by calling someone not on the 'approved' list. (Phone
privileges were granted such that a patient was allowed to call two or three
people at best (family had to be the first one), and he had to specify who he
was calling when he started the call.  The phone was also behind a locked
door, so random access was impossible.)  On the other hand, his civil rights
were being violated (both in not being allowed to talk to a lawyer and in
having his conversations eavesdropped on) and there wasn't a damn thing he
could do about it.

Another interesting thing about this place came out when another friend (ok, 
so a lot of my friends are considered 'odd'...) tried to leave.  She had not
been committed, and upon her entry she had been given a list of her rights.
She had also been required to sign the admissions forms, which did not
mention term of stay but did say that she had to provide 72 hours' notice if
she wanted to leave.  Guess what the 72 hour period was for.  Why didn't they
just commit her in the first place if they were going to putll that b.s. on
her?  [As an aside, every one of the 'rights' was tested and failed.]  This
person was under 18, by the way, but she, not her parents, had signed the
admissions forms. 

Anyone know how the laws break down for people under 18? 

Anyway, it is this sort of stuff that makes me despise the current system of
punishment.  I'm by no means an expert (I don't even work in the field) but
isn't there *some* other way to solve the problem aside from locking people
up?

						-Dragon


-- 
UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon
ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg