Arguments
To discuss the unintended consequences and the positive impact of the bill we have to look at the role of special interest groups. The two major interest groups in opposition of the bill were the American Civil Liberties Union and the Sheriff’s Association of Virginia, additional other law enforcement agencies were in opposition. These interest groups were in opposition because of two issues that may result from the bill stripping the individual of their civil liberty rights and reverting back to when the government had more power and time to detain individuals against their will. The second consequence is the manpower needed during the duration of the emergency custody and temporary detention hearings, taking resources away from …show more content…
Senate Bill 260 only addressed some of the identified problems from the studies aforementioned with additional issues addressed in the report by the Inspector General’s Office. For service providers the need to provide best practice and quality service is utmost importance and within the Social Work field an ethical adherence to the NASW code. As such, there needs to be an increase rather than the decrease in available psychiatric beds, however, simultaneously there needs to be an increase in community outpatient services. The 2012 study found that clinicians reported that 25.8% of cases hospitalization could have been avoided if services outside had been available. This coincides with the 2013 study that found 42% of adults admitted for emergency evaluation did not receive prior treatment (Bonnie et al., 2013). The legislation did not address community service needs and 24 hour access to community services that can be utilized prior to involuntary admission. In addition, improving existing resources such as the Assisted Outpatient treatment (AOT) program that requires individuals abide by the treatment plan although intended for individuals who are in crisis but feel they do not need treatment thus creating a barrier to the program (Stettin, Geller, Ragosta, Cohen & Ghowrwal,
To discuss the unintended consequences and the positive impact of the bill we have to look at the role of special interest groups. The two major interest groups in opposition of the bill were the American Civil Liberties Union and the Sheriff’s Association of Virginia, additional other law enforcement agencies were in opposition. These interest groups were in opposition because of two issues that may result from the bill stripping the individual of their civil liberty rights and reverting back to when the government had more power and time to detain individuals against their will. The second consequence is the manpower needed during the duration of the emergency custody and temporary detention hearings, taking resources away from …show more content…
Senate Bill 260 only addressed some of the identified problems from the studies aforementioned with additional issues addressed in the report by the Inspector General’s Office. For service providers the need to provide best practice and quality service is utmost importance and within the Social Work field an ethical adherence to the NASW code. As such, there needs to be an increase rather than the decrease in available psychiatric beds, however, simultaneously there needs to be an increase in community outpatient services. The 2012 study found that clinicians reported that 25.8% of cases hospitalization could have been avoided if services outside had been available. This coincides with the 2013 study that found 42% of adults admitted for emergency evaluation did not receive prior treatment (Bonnie et al., 2013). The legislation did not address community service needs and 24 hour access to community services that can be utilized prior to involuntary admission. In addition, improving existing resources such as the Assisted Outpatient treatment (AOT) program that requires individuals abide by the treatment plan although intended for individuals who are in crisis but feel they do not need treatment thus creating a barrier to the program (Stettin, Geller, Ragosta, Cohen & Ghowrwal,