San Diego County considers forcing residents to take psychiatric medication under Laura's Law
Saturday, April 13, 2013 by: Mike Bundrant

(NaturalNews) San Diego County in California is considering implementing Laura's Law, which would give the state's second most populous county - home to over three million people - the uncontested right to force psychiatric medication upon its residents.

Funds for the forced inpatient or outpatient psychiatric incarceration, known as "assisted outpatient treatment" are to be provided by taxpayers. Other bills under consideration would extend Laura's Law to schoolchildren, at the discretion of school administrators.

Laura's Law is heavily supported by law enforcement, the press, the American Psychiatric Association and host of "consumer and family advocate groups." In others words, those who believe the government deserves more control absolutely love Laura's Law. After all, Laura's Law offers those in power the ultimate form of control - over your brain chemistry.

What is Laura's Law?

Laura's Law is an existing state law, passed by the California state legislature in 2002 and signed by Governor Gray Davis. The law makes it possible for anyone to be ordered into psychiatric treatment if determined appropriate by authorities. Non-compliant "patients" are not given a choice, pending involuntary incarceration.

Each county within the state of California has the option of implementing Laura's Law. Los Angeles County implemented it in 2004. San Diego County undertook a 90-day review of the law in March 2013 as it considers implementation.

The law is named for Laura Wilcox, who was shot and killed at the age of 19 by a man with untreated, severe mental illness.

How do you qualify for forced psychiatric treatment under Laura's Law?

Authorities simply determine that you meet the state approved criteria. In California, the criteria are as follows:

Inpatient: (1) Danger to self/others or (2) unable to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.

Outpatient: Condition likely to substantially deteriorate, unlikely to survive safely in community without supervision, history of noncompliance which includes two hospitalizations in past 36 months or act/threat/attempt of violence to self/others in 48 months immediately preceding petition filing, likely needs to prevent meeting inpatient standard, and likely to benefit from assisted treatment.

Glancing over these standards quickly is dangerous because they are written to appear strict and reasonable. If we break them down, however, you can see that the wildly vague language used is open to broad interpretation.

The bottom line is this: Someone in authority needs to decide that you are a "danger." That's it. Then, they can lock you up and medicate you into oblivion. Case closed.

But wait, it says that you have to have a hard history of hospitalization and violence in order to qualify. Not so! All you need to qualify to lose your physical and mental freedom is, at any time during the last four years, to act/threat/attempt violence to self/others. An "act/threat/attempt" of violence, by the way, could be ANYTHING. Giving someone a dirty look could be interpreted as a threat of violence.

Finally, authorities have put themselves in a position to predict whether or not you are "likely to benefit" from assisted treatment. And the clause, condition likely to substantially deteriorate, suggests that they can take over your life if they feel you may do something wrong in the future.

I recently spoke with Sophie Faught at MindFreedom International about Laura's Law. MindFreedom International is a true patient rights advocacy group that believes in mental health freedom. Sophie said the following:

For over 25 years, we at MindFreedom have argued for VOICE and CHOICE in mental health care. We're against force in mental health care because it's simply not therapeutic. When you're suffering from mental or emotional distress, the last thing you need is to have a technology you don't believe in forced on you. Rather,you need to feel safe and loved by your fellow human beings. It's that human connection, which can be found in peer support and compassionate care, that helps you find the meaning in your experience and your path to a better mental/emotional place.

Many of our members describe the practice of forced drugging as dehumanizing, invasive, violent, and downright TRAUMATIZING. Because trauma is so often a contributing factor to mental/emotional distress, our first goal should be to provide care that does not exacerbate old traumas or create new ones. Forced drugging cannot possibly meet that goal -- many psychiatric survivors spend years coming to terms with the violence and violation of that kind of an act.

Forcibly injecting another human being with a mind-altering chemical cannot be considered therapeutic under any circumstances, but it's especially shocking to think of doing this to a person in his own home, the place (above all others), where he expects privacy, self-determination, and safety. What psychiatry says through this act is: "There is only a narrow spectrum of thoughts and emotions that are acceptable, EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME, EVEN IN YOUR OWN MIND."

Why limit mankind? Why stop these journeys into the inner world of thoughts and feelings? What incredible discoveries do we -- as individuals and as a society -- miss in the process?

MindFreedom International will always oppose legislation like Laura's Law because we believe that there must be safe spaces for extreme thoughts and emotions. Mankind has much to learn from these experiences. They are a difficult but necessary part of the healing path.

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/039907_psychi...l#ixzz2QX7Dq6So

ECT is still used to treat mental illness in America. It's use is controversial. Some patients swear by its effectiveness in relieving extreme depression that could ultimately result in suicide. Others say that it is barbaric and cruel. Many people's only familiarity with it is in the film, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

Lobotomy is still used in extreme cases of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

If we allow the government to demand the medicating of people, what is to stop them from using other treatment forms that some would never want enforced upon them?

They used to go further and lock up the mentally ill. Can you have a society where the mentally ill are allowed to roam the streets?

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #6

---

They used to go further and lock up the mentally ill. Can you have a society where the mentally ill are allowed to roam the streets?

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #6

---

They used to go further and lock up the mentally ill. Can you have a society where the mentally ill are allowed to roam the streets?

---

The mentally ill already are your neighbors.

In your town you have people will a myriad of diagnosed conditions. PTSD, postpartum depression, anxiety disorder, dysthymia, anorexia, depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, hoarding disorder are just a few that are treated outside of the mental institutions. These are people at your grocery store, teaching in your schools, sitting in the church and working on the school board. They do not walk around with labels on their forehead so that you can spot them at a distance. With proper treatment they can lead normal lives that allow them to function freely in society. If you employ a dragnet to remove everyone with a diagnosis you will have to build millions of beds to store these people away needlessly when their conditions are under control with medication.

My neighbor with a hoarding disorder may be a problem for their family that must live with them, but I do not fear them. Their condition is treatable and it has no effect on my life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...tric-bible.html

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #4

---

ECT is still used to treat mental illness in America. It's use is controversial. Some patients swear by its effectiveness in relieving extreme depression that could ultimately result in suicide. Others say that it is barbaric and cruel. Many people's only familiarity with it is in the film, "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest".

Lobotomy is still used in extreme cases of Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder.

If we allow the government to demand the medicating of people, what is to stop them from using other treatment forms that some would never want enforced upon them?

---

Quote: Rev wrote in post #1

---

San Diego County considers forcing residents to take psychiatric medication under Laura's Law
Saturday, April 13, 2013 by: Mike Bundrant

(NaturalNews) San Diego County in California is considering implementing Laura's Law, which would give the state's second most populous county - home to over three million people - the uncontested right to force psychiatric medication upon its residents.

Funds for the forced inpatient or outpatient psychiatric incarceration, known as "assisted outpatient treatment" are to be provided by taxpayers. Other bills under consideration would extend Laura's Law to schoolchildren, at the discretion of school administrators.

Laura's Law is heavily supported by law enforcement, the press, the American Psychiatric Association and host of "consumer and family advocate groups." In others words, those who believe the government deserves more control absolutely love Laura's Law. After all, Laura's Law offers those in power the ultimate form of control - over your brain chemistry.

What is Laura's Law?

Laura's Law is an existing state law, passed by the California state legislature in 2002 and signed by Governor Gray Davis. The law makes it possible for anyone to be ordered into psychiatric treatment if determined appropriate by authorities. Non-compliant "patients" are not given a choice, pending involuntary incarceration.

Each county within the state of California has the option of implementing Laura's Law. Los Angeles County implemented it in 2004. San Diego County undertook a 90-day review of the law in March 2013 as it considers implementation.

The law is named for Laura Wilcox, who was shot and killed at the age of 19 by a man with untreated, severe mental illness.

How do you qualify for forced psychiatric treatment under Laura's Law?

Authorities simply determine that you meet the state approved criteria. In California, the criteria are as follows:

Inpatient: (1) Danger to self/others or (2) unable to provide for basic personal needs for food, clothing, or shelter.

Outpatient: Condition likely to substantially deteriorate, unlikely to survive safely in community without supervision, history of noncompliance which includes two hospitalizations in past 36 months or act/threat/attempt of violence to self/others in 48 months immediately preceding petition filing, likely needs to prevent meeting inpatient standard, and likely to benefit from assisted treatment.

Glancing over these standards quickly is dangerous because they are written to appear strict and reasonable. If we break them down, however, you can see that the wildly vague language used is open to broad interpretation.

The bottom line is this: Someone in authority needs to decide that you are a "danger." That's it. Then, they can lock you up and medicate you into oblivion. Case closed.

But wait, it says that you have to have a hard history of hospitalization and violence in order to qualify. Not so! All you need to qualify to lose your physical and mental freedom is, at any time during the last four years, to act/threat/attempt violence to self/others. An "act/threat/attempt" of violence, by the way, could be ANYTHING. Giving someone a dirty look could be interpreted as a threat of violence.

Finally, authorities have put themselves in a position to predict whether or not you are "likely to benefit" from assisted treatment. And the clause, condition likely to substantially deteriorate, suggests that they can take over your life if they feel you may do something wrong in the future.

I recently spoke with Sophie Faught at MindFreedom International about Laura's Law. MindFreedom International is a true patient rights advocacy group that believes in mental health freedom. Sophie said the following:

For over 25 years, we at MindFreedom have argued for VOICE and CHOICE in mental health care. We're against force in mental health care because it's simply not therapeutic. When you're suffering from mental or emotional distress, the last thing you need is to have a technology you don't believe in forced on you. Rather,you need to feel safe and loved by your fellow human beings. It's that human connection, which can be found in peer support and compassionate care, that helps you find the meaning in your experience and your path to a better mental/emotional place.

Many of our members describe the practice of forced drugging as dehumanizing, invasive, violent, and downright TRAUMATIZING. Because trauma is so often a contributing factor to mental/emotional distress, our first goal should be to provide care that does not exacerbate old traumas or create new ones. Forced drugging cannot possibly meet that goal -- many psychiatric survivors spend years coming to terms with the violence and violation of that kind of an act.

Forcibly injecting another human being with a mind-altering chemical cannot be considered therapeutic under any circumstances, but it's especially shocking to think of doing this to a person in his own home, the place (above all others), where he expects privacy, self-determination, and safety. What psychiatry says through this act is: "There is only a narrow spectrum of thoughts and emotions that are acceptable, EVEN IN YOUR OWN HOME, EVEN IN YOUR OWN MIND."

Why limit mankind? Why stop these journeys into the inner world of thoughts and feelings? What incredible discoveries do we -- as individuals and as a society -- miss in the process?

MindFreedom International will always oppose legislation like Laura's Law because we believe that there must be safe spaces for extreme thoughts and emotions. Mankind has much to learn from these experiences. They are a difficult but necessary part of the healing path.

Learn more:

http://www.naturalnews.com/039907_psychi...l#ixzz2QX7Dq6So

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #8

---

Quote: Palinista wrote in post #7

---

Quote: Weird Tolkienish Figure wrote in post #6

---

They used to go further and lock up the mentally ill. Can you have a society where the mentally ill are allowed to roam the streets?

---

The mentally ill already are your neighbors.

In your town you have people will a myriad of diagnosed conditions. PTSD, postpartum depression, anxiety disorder, dysthymia, anorexia, depression, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, hoarding disorder are just a few that are treated outside of the mental institutions. These are people at your grocery store, teaching in your schools, sitting in the church and working on the school board. They do not walk around with labels on their forehead so that you can spot them at a distance. With proper treatment they can lead normal lives that allow them to function freely in society. If you employ a dragnet to remove everyone with a diagnosis you will have to build millions of beds to store these people away needlessly when their conditions are under control with medication.

My neighbor with a hoarding disorder may be a problem for their family that must live with them, but I do not fear them. Their condition is treatable and it has no effect on my life.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/articl...tric-bible.html

---

Right there are degrees. Once upon a time the mentally ill were schizophrenics.

---

So we do nothing and let these people continue killing. Yes, sounds like a sane decision. ???

The Soviet Union had a major program for incarcerating dissidents as forced psychiatric patients. The oligarchy is "merely" gearing up to include such horrific goings on in their full court press to shred the Constitution and limit citizens' freedoms, travel, options.

Yeah, some folks need inpatient care--even against their will.

But making that easy, imho, is a dreadful, draconian thing.

Quote: Justme wrote in post #2

---

Scary

---