NAMI MERCER TESTIMONY in SUPPORT
OF S2760
Submitted on
September 26, 2005
by
Executive Director,
NAMI Mercer
Many of our members have experienced the pain of watching
helplessly while their loved one refuses treatment and becomes increasingly psychotic, only to be told by mental health professionals
that nothing can be done. This circumstance is simply unacceptable. While S2760 does not solve this problem, it
does offer an important and necessary additional resource for individuals in
this situation. Therefore, NAMI Mercer
supports passage of S2760 allowing involuntary commitment to outpatient
treatment in
Insight in chronic mental illness is usually gained slowly.
Ideally, it occurs progressively through collaborative treatment and steady
supports. However, there are a small group of individuals who are so
cognitively disabled by a mental illness that they persistently deny having a
mental illness and repeatedly refuse treatment. These individuals disproportionately
become homeless, incarcerated, exploited or harmed. Their suffering and the
suffering of their family is enormous and sometimes avoidable.
While
S2760 provides an important and necessary tool to provide
treatment to people whose illness has shown a history of recurring
deterioration and risk of harm. It allows a mental health professional to
actively intervene, even if the ill person unwilling, so that a traumatic
course does not recur again and again. It also provides a critical
clarification of the standard currently used for civil commitment. This
clarification should clear some of the unnecessary roadblocks to earlier
intervention that now exist.
NAMI
Mercer supports S2760 as written. We also recommend two improvements.
We also
agree that S2760 must be accompanied by provision of adequate community
services for these individuals at risk, so that targeted interventions to
engage the person’s cooperation with care are available before outpatient
commitment is invoked, and so that quality outpatient care that meets the
person where they are, is provided after Involuntary Outpatient Treatment is
invoked. We believe that the intent of this bill is not to substitute coercion
for engagement and cooperation, but to add another means to leverage
cooperation. The new mental health budget takes an important step in this
direction by expanding psychiatric emergency services, and by budgeting a
million and a half dollars for specialized case management services to
implement new involuntary outpatient treatment services.
To ensure
effective implementation of Involuntary Outpatient Treatment, the Department of
Human Services should set up a review committee including the Department,
mental health providers, family members and consumers, representing the variety
of positions in favor of and opposed to the bill. This need not be included in
legislation, but should be understood. The goal of Involuntary Outpatient
Treatment is to prevent individuals with mental illness being left to
deteriorate to the point of harm to themselves and their community, without
every effort being made to avoid or interrupt this suffering. Recommendations
made by the review group intended to achieve this goal, while also protecting
the rights and autonomy of people with mental illness, should be given the
highest priority in the Department.