Why doesn't Oregon have Laura's Law?

A blogger in Oregon recently posed the question – why doesn’t Oregon have Laura’s Law?

I wonder why we don't have something like Laura's Law (see previous entry) in Oregon. Is it because we don't have the resources? When you think of all the damage that happens without Laura's Law, doesn't it make sense that we find the resources? In the end, I believe it would be cost-effective, since it could keep people out of the hospital and/or jail and could help them to function better through counseling and meds. Doesn't this seem like a humane way to deal with people who are deteriorating, by keeping them from getting worse? Families would have some sort of recourse when their loved one starts going out of control. It just seems a shame we aren't looking at this law as being one of our solutions.

Laura’s Law or assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) is an effective and humane way of helping people with severe mental illnesses who need treatment.

Oregon does have AOT, but it’s rarely used, and a person must be a danger to themselves or others before it’s ordered.

The question posed by the blogger is an excellent one for Oregon legislators – Why does Oregon make it so difficult for its citizens with severe mental illnesses to get outpatient treatment?

"Society has sacrificed human sanity..."

"I believe it is time to restore common sense to a society that has literally sacrificed human sanity in the name of personal privacy. I consider it a great honor and privilege to join this effort."

- TAC executive director, Kurt Entsminger in an interview with Schizophrenia Connections' Robin Cunningham

"Rights not only to life, but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness..."

In a blog previewing an upcoming interview with TAC executive director Kurt Entsminger (stay tuned…) Robin Cunningham of Schizophrenia Connections writes of the constitutional rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Certainly the constitution didn’t intend those rights for everyone except those with severe mental illnesses.

At a time in our nation's history when there was little or no hope of recovery from serious brain diseases, the nation, spurred on by the demands of Dorthea Dix, ensured what it could for those suffering from these illnesses. It ensured life by providing subsistence levels of service. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness seemed unobtainable and were compromised.

In my next blog, I will present portions of an interview with Kurt Entsminger who is the newly named Executive Director of the Treatment Advocacy Center. His organization is at the center of the debate concerning how to guarantee to those of us living with schizophrenia our constitutional rights to not only life, but also liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Accepting the reality of mental illness

Blogger and writer for National Review, Jennifer Roback Morse comments on Michael Judge’s moving piece about Sonny Iovino in the Wall Street Journal:

“In my view, the problem is that the modern world is so deeply committed to rationality and autonomy that we can not accept the reality of individuals who are not capable of rational thought or of using their autonomy.”

Finding someone to blame

Who is to blame when tragedy results from untreated severe mental illness?

At the end of October in Richmond, VA, Johnny Hughes, a man with untreated schizophrenia, fatally stabbed a woman while she was walking her dog.

The author of a new blog - “families for timely mental health treatment laws” – noticed some of the comments posted on the website of the Richmond Times Dispatch regarding this story. Many blamed the family of Johnny Hughes for not monitoring him.

Posted October 30, 2007 @ 09:55 AM by Anonymousafter reading this man's rap sheet i too am finding compassion a hard sell. i agree the family dropped the ball, this man needed to be under lock and key somewhere and his family should own up to their responcibility.

The author of the “families for treatment” blog responds to these comments with the perspective of someone who has tried to help a loved-one get treatment.

Blame and pointing a finger at families who try desperately to get help for their loved ones and who often are involved in advocating for the changes needed will not resolve the issue of ensuring that someone with a mental illness receives the treatment they need. Enacting common-sense, timely assisted outpatient treatment (AOT) laws with adequate services and programs, as well as providing sufficient support in a hospital when needed, is what should happen.

Pennsylvania advocates speak out

The Treatment Advocacy Center received the following email in response to our blog entry yesterday:

I'm not really sure how anyone who heard or read this story could walk away thinking that her son should just continue to live his life this way, just because that is his choice. There are services in his county, he doesn't want or need them though because he thinks he is fine.

As you'll see from others who testified [at a hearing in Pennsylvania for SB 226] some think that just adding services will solve the problem. All the services in the world are not going to benefit someone who refuses to accept them. Helping someone remain in treatment, however, may in time help them to regain the insight to take charge of their treatment. That's really all we're trying to accomplish with SB 226 for the small minority of people who need this type of assisted outpatient treatment for an initial period of six months, in order to be able to one day be doing well enough to live a healthy life in their community, moving forward in their own recovery.

Want to join the conversation? Send us an email!