Fw: NAMI Maryland Draft Bill

> Hi Philip:> Got your voice mail message concerning the NAMI bill - Here is what I sent> to Janet concerning comments on the proposed legislation. I am pretty sure> our Board would not support changing the emergency petition process with the> term "likelihood"> to be dangerous. It is a much lower standard and moves the language from> one extreme to another - one being too difficult to one being too easy.> Remember there is a meeting tomorrow night, December 3 at 6:00 PM at Larry> Fitch's office - the Office of Forensic Services on the grounds of Perkins> Hospital Center in Jessup - in Howard County. Hope you can make it.> > Mike> ----- Original Message -----> Subject: Re: NAMI Maryland Draft Bill> > >> Dear Janet:>>>> I will share this information with our Board, etc. and will get back to>> you. We did have a Board of Directors meeting on Tuesday, November 12th.>> The information that was given out at the November 7th meeting with Larry>> Fitch and others was presented to our Board. The Board did not take an>> official position but did review the information and a majority of Board>> members seemed to be willing to accept this change in the way "emergency>> petitions" are issued - by basically making the standard of dangerousness>> the same for the petition as it is for involuntary commitment - that is:>> THE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTS A DANGER TO THE LIFE OR SAFETY OF THE INDIVIDUAL> OR>> OTHERS. . However, they did not take any official position until actual>> legislation is presented.>>>> I have reviewed the language in this NAMI version you have sent. It seems>> to me that you are actually changing the standard to a much lesser one of>> just dangerousness by using the word "LIKELIHOOD" - it seems that you are>> now creating a new standard going from the extreme of clear and imminent> to>> one of likelihood. This was not in the version that Larry Fitch presented>> and certainly not the version considered by our Board. I doubt our Board>> will support this version and would probably oppose legislation that uses>> the term "likelihood." I would urge NAMI to not use the word> "likelihood">> and use the language presented by Larry Fitch - this version has a much>> better chance of being supported by our Board.>>>> Best wishes,>> Mike>>>> ----- Original Message ----->> >> Sent: Wednesday, November 20, 2002 9:26 PM>> Subject: NAMI Maryland Draft Bill>>>>>> > Dear Colleagues:>> >>> > We at NAMI Maryland are writing to ask for your support and comments on>> > the following draft bill concerning the involuntary psychiatric>> > evaluation law. This is a bill that could save the lives of Marylanders.>> > Please review this draft and e-mail your comments to me at>> > by December 2, 2002. If e-mail is not possible,>> > please fax your comments to the NAMI Maryland office, .>> >>> > In the last legislative session we introduced a bill (HB923/SB645) that>> > addressed many issues in Maryland law that we knew were deficient based>> > on the experiences of many of our members. Some advocates disagreed with>> > our solutions. We believe that working together is very important,>> > especially in times of tight budgets. Therefore, we have focused on one>> > of the most serious problems in our mental health law that we hope many>> > groups can agree need to be changed: the high barrier to psychiatric>> > evaluation. NAMI MD will make this our only legislative initiative on>> > commitment law for this legislative session.>> >>> > The current "imminent" dangerousness standard for petition for>> > evaluation requires that a person must become much more dangerous to>> > qualify for an evaluation than is necessary for involuntary hospital>> > admission. ( The hospital admission standard is "presents a danger to>> > the life or safety of the individual or others) Therefore, at a>> > practical level, in many cases it is not possible to get a person to>> > evaluation, even though they meet the involuntary hospital admission>> > standards. Waiting for imminent danger can be too late to save a life,>> > or to avert trauma, tragedy, or involvement with the criminal justice>> > system. Access to treatment could avert needless deterioration.>> >>> > This draft proposes:>> >>> > 1. Changing the "imminent" standard for petition, to ensure that those>> > who meet the hospital involuntary admission standard will be evaluated.>> >>> > 2. Clarifying the criteria for emergency evaluation petitions by peace>> > officers.>> >>> > 3. Making it clear that a peace officer does not have to tender charges>> > against a person who has committed a penal act, prior to making a>> > petition for evaluation.>> >>> > In the following draft, proposed changes are in caps, proposed deletions>> > in brackets. We hope that you can support this bill. Please send me your>> > comments by e-mail or fax by Dec. 2, 2002.>> >>> > Sincerely,>> > Janet Edelman>> > Chairperson, NAMI MD Public Policy Committee>> >>> >>> > =================================================================>> >>> >>> >>> > Changes to the Emergency Evaluation Law in Maryland>> >>> > Article - Health - General>> > 10-622>> > (a)A petition for emergency evaluation of an individual may be made>> > under this section only if the petitioner has reason to believe that the>> > individual has a mental disorder and that [there is clear and imminent>> > danger of the individual's doing bodily harm to the individual or>> > another.] THE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTS A LIKELIHOOD OF DANGER TO THE LIFE OR>> > SAFETY OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR OTHERS.>> > (b) A petition for emergency evaluation of an individual may be made by:>> > (1) A physician, a psychologist, a clinical social worker, a licensed>> > clinical professional counselor, or a health officer or designee of a>> > health officer who has examined the individual AND MAY CONSIDER ANY>> > OTHER AVAILABLE INFORMATION;>> > (2) A Peace Officer who>> > (i) has personally observed the individual AND CONSIDERED ANY OTHER>> > AVAILABLE INFORMATION CONCERNING THE INDIVIDUAL'S MENTAL CONDITION AND>> > BEHAVIOR ; or>> > (ii) HAS PERSONALLY OBSERVED THE INDIVIDUAL'S BEHAVIOR; or>> > (3) Any other interested person.>> > (c) A PEACE OFFICER NEED NOT FORMALLY TENDER CHARGES AGAINST A PERSON>> > WHO HAS COMMITTED A PENAL ACT PRIOR TO MAKING A PETITION FOR EVALUATION.>> > (d) Contents of petition.>> > (1) A petition under this section shall :>> > (i) Be signed and verified by the petitioner;>> > (ii) State the petitioner's>> > 1. Name;>> > 2. Address; and>> > 3. Home and work telephone numbers;>> > (iii) State the emergency evaluee's>> > 1. Name; and>> > 2. Description ;>> > (iv) State the following information, if available:>> > 1. The address of the emergency evaluee; and>> > 2. The name and address of the spouse or a child, parent or other>> > relative of the emergency evaluee or any other individual who is>> > interested in the emergency evaluee;>> > (v) Contain a description of the behavior and statements of the>> > emergency evaluee OR ANY OTHERINFORMATION that led the petitioner to>> > believe that the emergency evaluee has a mental disorder and [that there>> > is clear and imminent danger of the emergency evaluee's doing bodily>> > harm to the emergency evaluee or another;] THAT THE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTS>> > A LIKELIHOOD OF DANGER TO THE LIFE OR SAFETY OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR>> > OTHERS; and>> > (vi) Contain any other facts that support the need for emergency>> evaluation.>> >>> >>> > 10-623(b)>> > Endorsement. – After review of the petition, the court shall endorse the>> > petition if the court finds probable cause to believe that the emergency>> > evaluee has shown the symptoms of a mental disorder and that [there>> > appears to be clear and imminent danger of the emergency evaluee's doing>> > bodily harm to the emergency evaluee or another.] THE INDIVIDUAL>> > PRESENTS A LIKELIHOOD OF DANGER TO THE LIFE OR SAFETY OF THE INDIVIDUAL>> > OR OTHERS.>> >>> > 10-626(a)>> > Finding of Probable Cause.--- A court may order, at any time, an>> > emergency evaluation under Part IV of this subtitle of an individual who>> > has been arrested, if the court finds probable cause to believe that the>> > individual has a mental disorder and that [there appears to be clear and>> > imminent danger of the individual's doing bodily harm to the individual>> > or another.] THE INDIVIDUAL PRESENTS A LIKELIHOOD OF DANGER TO THE LIFE>> > OR SAFETY OF THE INDIVIDUAL OR OTHERS.>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> > NAMI Maryland>> > November 20 ,2002>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >