Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

As a psychologist I am disgusted by this policy and the falsehood in many of the posts here that most homeless and mentally ill people pose a danger to others. Most homeless and mentally ill people are neither violent nor dangerous. I'm not surprised in the least that the pearl clutchers on DCUM have stigma toward the mentally ill and homeless.

Maybe this is the only good thing that can come out of this horrible Supreme Court - do you think they would really slap this down if it got that far? Adams has the right idea - it is not humane to have our fellow citizens who are out of their mind out on the streets.

Still trying to understand what this means over an FD-12. DC MPD brings people to the hospital all the time under FD-12 (involuntary psychiatric hospitalization), and the hospital cannot legally discharge them (or anyone) until they are deemed safe. So this means that each admitted case gets a psychiatric consult as well as a case worker. I suppose this would set criteria to keep them there longer, but is it just postponing the inevitable?

In addition, the city would have to then find a way to increase funds to hospitals to create entire units and add and staff beds. We're talking millions of dollars here. People already wait in the ER with nonpsychiatric conditions for over 24 hours just to get admitted up to a room. Waiting in the ER often means sitting on a stretcher in a chaotic hallway with other patients and overstretched, understaffed hospital staff.

Here is some DC language that already exists for FD-12s:

"C. Voluntary and Non-voluntary Transport to Comprehensive Psychiatric
Emergency Program (CPEP)
1. If a member believes an interaction with a mental health consumer
has escalated to the point where death or serious bodily injury is
imminent, the member shall:
a. Take appropriate police action.
b. Contact an official for barricade/hostage situations where
Emergency Response Team response may be appropriate.
2. In all other cases, a member who reasonably believes that an adult
individual is mentally ill and poses a danger or threat of danger to
himself or herself or others, shall transport the individual without
delay to the Comprehensive Psychiatric Emergency Program
(CPEP) located in Building 14 on the grounds of the former DC
General Hospital.
3. All adults being transported to CPEP for mental observation in a
Department vehicle shall be field searched by the member and
handcuffed prior to being placed in a vehicle.
a. Weapons, or other items which could be used to inflict injury,
shall be removed and properly recorded on the property
book at the assigned organization element of the
transporting member.
b. All other personal property of the person being transported
shall accompany the person and turned over to CPEP staff.
4. If an adult who shows no signs of being a danger to himself or
herself or others voluntarily agrees to go to CPEP:
a. An adult family member should first arrange transportation. If
the family member can not arrange transportation, the
transportation can be by a Department vehicle. If the
individual is injured, transportation should be by ambulance
to the closest appropriate hospital. Members may determine
INTERACTING WITH MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMERS (GO-OPS-308.04) 6 of 15
whether handcuffs and other restraining devices are
appropriate in the event that they ride in the ambulance.
b. Prepare a field report with the classification “Sick Person to
the Hospital”.
5. If the adult does not voluntarily agree to go to CPEP, the member
shall:
a. Transport the adult mental health consumer, using handcuffs
and, if necessary, additional restraining devices, to CPEP on
the grounds of the former DC General Hospital, Building 14.
b. If the suspected mental health consumer is violent, but not
under arrest, request a transport wagon with two members
to assist in transporting the individual.
c. Execute a Form FD-12 outlining the circumstances for the
detention and provide this form to the staff of the facility.
(1) The information entered on the Form FD-12 shall
describe the specific behaviors or statements of the
mental health consumer which led the member
initiating the emergency hospitalization to believe that
the person was in imminent danger of harming
himself or herself or others.
(2) Members may consult with the staff at CPEP for
assistance with completing the Form FD-12.
(3) Members initiating an FD-12 shall be responsible for
transporting the mental health consumer’s property.
(a) In the event that the mental health consumer’s
property would be classified as an
encampment, the member shall contact the
Office of Neighborhood Engagement through
the Mayor’s Command Center to handle the
property.
(b) In all cases, when a FD-12 is initiated by
another agency, the initiating agency will be
responsible for transporting the property. In
the event that the agency member does not
have access to a vehicle, the MPD member
shall transport the agency member who will
maintain responsibility for the property.
INTERACTING WITH MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMERS (GO-OPS-308.04) 7 of 15
d. Prepare a field report with the classification “Sick Person to
the Hospital”.
e. Upon obtaining a Central Complaint Number (CCN) for the
field report, provide the Teletype Unit with the name of the
mental health consumer"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 bucks says the Supreme Court slaps down NYC’s plan.

Lol are you familiar with the current makeup of the Supreme Court?

Yes I am. They would absolutely reverse this solely to “punish” Democratic cities.

You don't follow legal philosophy, do you? Originalism = police powers (including health) belong to the states.

Omg, you’re so precious in your naïvety.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

NP. I don't think the courts are going to agree with you here, but even if they did, where does that leave you? There's hundreds of people living on the street (not counting people who are in emergency shelters) and there aren't hundreds of beds. I'm not sure which psych wards in the city take involuntary commitments, I know GW does (my husband was committed there once) and it has 20 beds. PIW has 120 which is relatively speaking huge, but these beds are mostly already occupied. You tried to get a loved one committed to the psych ward recently? I have, and it was days of sitting in the ER waiting for a bed somewhere to open, and when it did it wasn't at a hospital that takes involuntary commitments.

This is a PR stunt, not a plan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:serious question - where will they put all these people? are those places equipped to handle them?

They plan to bus to FL and Tx.

They'll fit right in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

No one said anything about drugs, that's a separate issue. But simply sleeping on the streets does not endangers anyone, tf are you talking about?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 bucks says the Supreme Court slaps down NYC’s plan.

Lol are you familiar with the current makeup of the Supreme Court?

Yes I am. They would absolutely reverse this solely to “punish” Democratic cities.

You don't follow legal philosophy, do you? Originalism = police powers (including health) belong to the states.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It is not humane to leave sick people out on the street to hurt themselves and others. No rational objective person would choose that life. They need help. I think Adams made the right decision.

.

But his plan SPECIFICALLY is talking about people who are NEITHER a danger to themselves or others.

This is bizarre - living on the streets (especially high) is inherently a danger to themselves AND others.

Anonymous wrote:There is literally no room for this in hospitals. Period.

You can debate whether we can or should - but there isn't enough room for the people who want help; let alone people who don't and who aren't a danger to anyone.

THERE ARE NO BEDS.

This.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 bucks says the Supreme Court slaps down NYC’s plan.

Lol are you familiar with the current makeup of the Supreme Court?

Yes I am. They would absolutely reverse this solely to “punish” Democratic cities.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:10 bucks says the Supreme Court slaps down NYC’s plan.

Florida does it. Baker Act.

The Baker Act has a much higher bar (likelihood of serious bodily harm) than what Adams is proposing here.

Doing what he is proposing requires lots of beds, lots of money, and a series of legal outcomes that would break precedent.

Anonymous wrote:10 bucks says the Supreme Court slaps down NYC’s plan.

Lol are you familiar with the current makeup of the Supreme Court?

Anonymous wrote:10 bucks says the Supreme Court slaps down NYC’s plan.

Florida does it. Baker Act.

There is literally no room for this in hospitals. Period.

You can debate whether we can or should - but there isn't enough room for the people who want help; let alone people who don't and who aren't a danger to anyone.

THERE ARE NO BEDS.