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