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 the community. Another perspective is the timely manner in which an individual is detained against their will with the extension of the time in order to find appropriate psychiatric facility or for an evaluation does this infringe on an individual’s right to a speedy process. Also, to take care that we are not reverting our procedures to focus more on dangerousness and the involuntary holding individuals based on fear of the level of dangerousness rather than focusing on the need for treatment. With additional resources on involuntary patients that voluntary patients do not receive treatment due to inadequate space. (Testa & West, 2010) The real time registry would eliminate search, however, additional funding was not provided for more mental health professionals to upkeep the system. Additionally, funding was not provided for additional law enforcement officers and as a result could impact quality service. When the policy was written these problems addressed here and now were unintended consequences often times an unavoidable result. On the other hand the following identified special interest groups lobbied on behalf of the bill: Community Health Systems, Hospital Corp of America, Medical Society of VA, National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) Virginia Chapter, VA Assn of Community Service Boards and VA College of emergency physicians (The Virginia Public Access Project, Inc., 2014). Additional organizations such as VOCAL supported Deeds Bill in an effort to bring mental health reform to the forefront but did not specifically agree with all propositions within the legislation due to civil liberty issues surrounding civil commitment. The right to receive treatment whether voluntary and involuntary admission and individuals are let go not because they do not meet the criteria but because of lack of resources to provide them with treatment. The extension of the emergency custody order duration now allows mental health professionals more time for provide proper evaluations and find appropriate facilities for individuals. The allowance of an extended temporary detention period would possibly allow for a period of improved conditions that could potentially increase voluntary admission by the individual. Often time’s competency to understand the treatment needs and lack of education on treatment options for the individual leads to the decision against voluntary admission. However, consideration should still be taken into what is appropriate time frame in which an individual can …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 the community. Another perspective is the timely manner in which an individual is detained against their will with the extension of the time in order to find appropriate psychiatric facility or for an evaluation does this infringe on an individual’s right to a speedy process. Also, to take care that we are not reverting our procedures to focus more on dangerousness and the involuntary holding individuals based on fear of the level of dangerousness rather than focusing on the need for treatment. With additional resources on involuntary patients that voluntary patients do not receive treatment due to inadequate space. (Testa & West, 2010) The real time registry would eliminate search, however, additional funding was not provided for more mental health professionals to upkeep the system. Additionally, funding was not provided for additional law enforcement officers and as a result could impact quality service. When the policy was written these problems addressed here and now were unintended consequences often times an unavoidable result. On the other hand the following identified special interest groups lobbied on behalf of the bill: Community Health Systems, Hospital Corp of America, Medical Society of VA, National Alliance of Mental Illness (NAMI) Virginia Chapter, VA Assn of Community Service Boards and VA College of emergency physicians (The Virginia Public Access Project, Inc., 2014). Additional organizations such as VOCAL supported Deeds Bill in an effort to bring mental health reform to the forefront but did not specifically agree with all propositions within the legislation due to civil liberty issues surrounding civil commitment. The right to receive treatment whether voluntary and involuntary admission and individuals are let go not because they do not meet the criteria but because of lack of resources to provide them with treatment. The extension of the emergency custody order duration now allows mental health professionals more time for provide proper evaluations and find appropriate facilities for individuals. The allowance of an extended temporary detention period would possibly allow for a period of improved conditions that could potentially increase voluntary admission by the individual. Often time’s competency to understand the treatment needs and lack of education on treatment options for the individual leads to the decision against voluntary admission. However, consideration should still be taken into what is appropriate time frame in which an individual can …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,