San Francisco passes law allowing forced treatment of mentally ill

SAN FRANCISCO Wed Jul 9, 2014 3:06am EDT

Related Topics

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - San Francisco lawmakers approved a law late on Tuesday allowing the forced treatment of mentally ill patients under certain conditions, drawing swift criticism from patient advocacy groups who say the measure tramples civil rights.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which passes legislation for the California city and county, adopted by a vote of 9-2 a measure known as Laura's Law.

If given final approval it would allow court-ordered outpatient treatment for people with chronic and severe mental illness deemed a risk to themselves or others or who have been jailed or hospitalized more than once in the prior three years, among other conditions.

San Francisco legislator Mark Farrell, who proposed the legislation to the board, said the program would help vulnerable sick people "and provide the families the support they deserve".

Modeled after a similar involuntary treatment law passed in New York in 1999, California lawmakers passed Laura's Law in 2002 after 19-year-old Laura Wilcox was shot and killed by a mentally ill patient at a Nevada County behavioral health clinic where she was an intern.

The state law allows family members, police officers or mental health professionals to file petitions requesting the court-mandated treatment of a mentally ill person.

Individual counties can opt out. Laura's Law has only been fully adopted by three California counties: Nevada, Orange, and Yolo. It is expected to receive final approval from supervisors next week and then be signed into law by San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee, who has expressed support for the program.

The law's implementation has been slow and sparse due to the concerns about civil rights, resources and costs.

"This is the wrong direction for any community but especially a progressive community like San Francisco," said Mental Health Association of San Francisco Executive Director Eduardo Vega.

"There's no real doubt that this is a process that fosters stigma around mental illness," Vega told Reuters after the vote.

The law requires city health officials to offer a mental health patient voluntary treatment before being forced into an involuntary outpatient program.

It also appoints a three-person panel to each case, which includes a forensic psychiatrist who would review the case to determine if a court-mandate is necessary.

(Reporting by Jennifer Chaussee in San Francisco; Writing by Eric M. Johnson; Editing by Gareth Jones)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see
Comments (3)
tchr58 wrote:
Now, that is scarey. Look at all the judges who are mentally a bit odd, or more than a bit. They are in the news everyday. Then there are the psychiatrists, whose suicide rate is something like 10 times higher than the rest of the population. These people are going to judge who is nuts? No matter who the person is, his or her mind should be their own. This proposal is the most obscene kind of rape.

Jul 09, 2014 5:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
1Amergal wrote:
When society is at risk of someone who needs mental treatment but isn’t getting it, we should get treatment for them, but only when there is a determination that they need it. Maybe a three person board to review the data instead of leaving it to one.

We can’t let people put others at risk if we know there is a problem.

Jul 09, 2014 10:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
pdquick wrote:
Except that it’s cleat that there are no consequences for declining therapy, so one wonders what they are doing that is not already being done in treatment.

Jul 13, 2014 4:15am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.