logo
Is forced treatment for the mentally ill ever humane?

Is forced treatment for the mentally ill ever humane?

Mint01-05-2025

In America's big cities, a walk down the street or a wait for the subway can be an exercise in avoidance. Scores of commuters in Los Angeles, New York and elsewhere don metaphorical blinders every day in order to ignore those sleeping fitfully on the train or battling psychosis on the street. Such indifference is morally fraught, but it is also a reflection of how common homelessness and public displays of mental illness have become.
Most Americans who experience homelessness do so briefly. They stay with family or crash on a friend's couch until they can afford rent. (The lack of affordable housing is the biggest driver of homelessness.) The Department of Housing and Urban Development's latest count of homeless people, tallied on a single night in January, found that 22% of them are 'chronically homeless', and that there were 16% more perennially homeless adults in 2022 than in 2020. Many live in tents beneath highways or in public parks. They are more likely to be suffering from drug addiction and mental illness, both of which can be made worse by living on the streets. The number of people sleeping outside has increased by roughly 3% since 2020, cancelling out the modest decline of people in shelters. As the ranks of unsheltered people have grown, an old question re-emerges: how should government help people who may not be able to help themselves?
The places most troubled by this, New York City and California, are trying to find an answer. Both have enacted policies aimed at people who are homeless and suffering from a psychotic disorder, such as schizophrenia. Yet they differ in important ways. Last month Eric Adams, the Democratic mayor of New York City, instructed police and first responders to hospitalise people with severe mental illness who are incapable of looking after themselves. Mr Adams's plan is a reinterpretation of existing rules. Law-enforcement and outreach workers can already remove people from public places if they present a danger to themselves or others. But now, the mayor stressed, people can be hospitalised if they seem merely unable to care for themselves. 'It is not acceptable for us to see someone who clearly needs help and walk past them,' Mr Adams proclaimed.
The mayor's plan follows a policy change on the opposite coast. At the urging of Gavin Newsom, California's Democratic governor, the state legislature passed the Community Assistance, Recovery, and Empowerment (CARE) Act in September , creating a new civil-court system aimed at directing the mentally ill and homeless to treatment and housing. Patients can be referred to CARE court by police, outreach workers, doctors or family members, among others.
Acceptance into the system means court-ordered treatment for up to two years, after which patients can 'graduate' or, potentially, be subjected to more restrictive care, such as a conservatorship. California has been quick to try to distance CARE court from New York's apparently more punitive response. 'It's a little bit like apples and giraffes,' says Jason Elliott, Mr Newsom's deputy chief of staff. 'We're both trying to solve the same problem, but with very different tools at our disposal, and also really different realities.'
The biggest difference between the two policies is their size. Because New York City recognises a right to shelter, the vast majority of the roughly 68,000 homeless people there have a roof over their heads. Experts reckon that Mr Adams's order may at first affect only those few hundred people in the most dire straits. The California Policy Lab at the University of California estimates that 10% of unsheltered people in Los Angeles who took part in street outreach programmes had been diagnosed with a psychotic disorder of the kind that CARE court is supposed to help manage. Because more than 100,000 Californians are sleeping rough, the state thinks that up to 12,000 people may initially be eligible for treatment.
The schemes may be different, but the outrage they inspire is similar. Any discussion of compulsory treatment for the mentally ill is tangled up in a decades-long fight over the balance between protecting people's civil liberties and bodily autonomy, and ensuring their safety and that of others. Officials and critics alike are squeamish about any reform that evokes the horrors of state-run asylums in the 20th century, which were often unsanitary, overcrowded and understaffed, and sometimes just cruel. When government-run hospitals were shut down, community-based care was supposed to take their place. Instead, patients were often discharged to underfunded boarding houses and shelters. 'We have not only abandoned people with severe mental illness to the jails, but also to the streets,' says Elizabeth Bromley, a psychiatrist at UCLA.
Many liberals blame Ronald Reagan for the government's abandonment of mentally ill Americans. As governor of California in 1967, Reagan signed a landmark bill for patients' rights, but then cut funding for mental-health care. As president in 1981, he rescinded federal funds for state mental-health services. But Alex Barnard, a sociologist at New York University, argues that heaping blame on Reagan is too simple. 'Many administrations in California have had opportunities to reverse Reagan,' he says. Perpetuating the myth of Reagan's total culpability, he adds, is 'a way of distracting ourselves from the real challenge of building a system today that meets people's needs, rather than just wishing we had it 50 years ago.'
Civil-rights advocates in both states worry that the new policies herald a swing of the pendulum back towards confinement. It is unclear how often mentally ill people are detained for examination or treatment, but recent research suggests that the average yearly detention rate in 22 states increased by 13% between 2012 and 2016. Many critics argue that involuntary treatment is not only brutal, but ineffective. But the evidence is mixed and conducting research is tricky, says Mr Barnard. 'You can't randomly assign people to voluntary and involuntary treatment if you think that somebody is at risk of killing themselves,' he explains. Mr Adams's plan and Mr Newsom's CARE court both aim to exhaust options for voluntary treatment before mandating medication or hospital.
Logistical questions abound, too. Luke Bergmann, the director of behavioural health services in San Diego County, worries about how severely ill, often isolated patients are supposed to travel to their court appointments, and whether there will be enough beds in long-term care facilities to house them. Watchdogs on both coasts wonder what kind of clinical training police will receive, and whether racial bias will lead to worse outcomes for black and Hispanic homeless people. Brian Stettin, Mr Adams's senior adviser for mental health, admits that confrontations with police can be traumatic, and stresses that cops will work alongside medical workers.
That Mr Newsom and Mr Adams are rethinking involuntary treatment reflects the failures of America's mental-health system, but also their recognition that homelessness represents a political problem for their administrations—and their careers. As unsheltered homelessness has grown, Americans have become accustomed to public displays of profound suffering. Californians routinely say that homelessness is one of the most important issues facing the state; New Yorkers worry most about crime.
Allowing the mentally ill to languish in the streets contributes to a feeling that public safety and quality of life in America's biggest cities are deteriorating. Mr Newsom and Mr Adams are two of the Democratic Party's most charismatic and ambitious politicians. Should either seek higher office one day, they will be asked what they did to solve the hardest problems in their respective domains. Now they will at least have an answer.
First Published: 1 May 2025, 09:02 PM IST

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Suspended Haryana SMO reinstated after 57 days
Suspended Haryana SMO reinstated after 57 days

Hindustan Times

timean hour ago

  • Hindustan Times

Suspended Haryana SMO reinstated after 57 days

The Haryana government has reinstated suspended senior medical officer (SMO), Dr Prabhu Dayal after a period of 57 days. Dr Dayal who was the nodal officer for Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques (PC-PNDT) Act in Hisar was placed under suspension for 'not doing enough to stem the dip in the state's sex ratio'. A June 5 order issued by the state government said that Dr Prabhu Dayal who was placed under suspension on April 9 is reinstated in service with immediate effect without prejudice to the disciplinary proceedings pending against him. On his reinstatement, Dr Dayal was posted at Civil Hospital, Hisar against a vacant post, the order said. The Haryana Civil Medical Service (HCMS) association had written to the state government seeking revocation of Dr Dayal's suspension. In a communication to the additional chief secretary, health, the HCMS association had said that Dr Dayal's suspension caused severe mental trauma and defamation not only for the doctor but for the whole HCMS cadre. 'The manner and circumstances under which Dr Dayal was suspended without preliminary inquiry or explanation is demoralising for the medical fraternity. We believe that the role of a PC-PNDT nodal officer is a challenging one and must be supported by the administration. Such a punitive action has sent a wrong message to the whole cadre and it will be very difficult to carry out the duties under PC-PNDT Act under such circumstances. This will adversely affect the programme,' said the HCMS association communication.

Bombay High Court allows abortion of 24-week pregnancy of 14-year-old rape survivor
Bombay High Court allows abortion of 24-week pregnancy of 14-year-old rape survivor

India Today

time3 hours ago

  • India Today

Bombay High Court allows abortion of 24-week pregnancy of 14-year-old rape survivor

The Bombay High Court on Tuesday permitted a 14-year-old girl from Maharashtra's Raigad to abort her pregnancy, if she so desires. The minor, a survivor of sexual assault by a man she had met on Instagram, was in the 24th week of case came to light when the girl's mother noticed that she had not menstruated for six months. A hospital visit confirmed the pregnancy, leading to the registration of a First Information Report (FIR) against the Manisha Jagtap, appearing for the minor who is currently admitted to a hospital in Raigad, submitted that the girl was unwilling and unable to carry the pregnancy to full term. Under the Medical Termination of Pregnancy (MTP) Act, a pregnancy may be terminated for up to 20 weeks without court approval. Since the girl had crossed this threshold, court permission was required for the procedure. On June 6, the High Court directed the Surgeon of the Civil Hospital, Alibaug, Raigad, to set up a Medical Board to assess the minor's condition. The court also asked the Board to evaluate her mental health. The Board later submitted its report stating the girl was anemic, and the termination procedure could only be carried out after correcting her hemoglobin the matter was heard again on Tuesday, the bench interacted with the Medical Board doctors, who confirmed that the minor was now fit to undergo the procedure. The doctors also assured the court that there were no foreseeable complications from the procedure that might affect the girl's ability to conceive in the future—an aspect that had concerned the these assurances, the High Court granted permission for the termination. Additionally, it directed the trial court handling the FIR under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act to expedite the determination of interim compensation for the Watch

Kennedy's firing of independent CDC advisers undermines vaccine confidence, experts say
Kennedy's firing of independent CDC advisers undermines vaccine confidence, experts say

Time of India

time5 hours ago

  • Time of India

Kennedy's firing of independent CDC advisers undermines vaccine confidence, experts say

Chicago: U.S. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s dismissal of an independent panel of experts citing the goal of restoring trust in vaccines could undermine confidence in those available now, putting Americans at risk of preventable infectious diseases, public health experts and others said on Monday. Kennedy, a longtime vaccine skeptic, said in a commentary published in the Wall Street Journal that he was firing all 17 members of the Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices (ACIP) at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention "to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science." The committee reviews vaccines approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and makes recommendations to the CDC on their use. "I fear that there will be human lives lost here because of this," said Dr. Sean O'Leary, chair of the American Academy of Pediatrics' Committee on Infectious Diseases. "It is a special kind of irony that he is saying he is doing this to restore trust, given that he is, as an individual, more responsible for sowing distrust in vaccines than almost anyone I can name," O'Leary said. O'Leary said pediatricians have already been fielding calls from parents who are confused about conflicting announcements earlier this month narrowing the use of COVID-19 vaccines for healthy children and pregnant women. "This is only going to add to that," he said. A U.S. Department of Health and Human Services spokesman said the agency is prioritizing public health, evidence-based medicine, and restoring public confidence in vaccine science. The firing of the entire vaccine advisory committee comes just weeks before a scheduled public meeting in which advisers were expected to weigh in and vote on a number of decisions, including the 2025-26 COVID-19 vaccine boosters . The health agency said the committee will meet as scheduled on June 25-27, but it is unclear who would serve on that panel or how they have been vetted for conflicts of interest. The agency said it would replace them with new members currently under consideration. Fired ACIP member Noel Brewer, a professor of public health at the University of North Carolina, said it took about 18 months from the time he applied until he was serving as an ACIP member. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer decried the changes. "Wiping out an entire panel of vaccine experts doesn't build trust - it shatters it, and worse, it sends a chilling message: that ideology matters more than evidence, and politics more than public health," he said in a statement. Former CDC Director Dr. Thomas Frieden called out Kennedy's "false claims" in the Wall Street Journal piece, saying the panel was rife with conflicts of interest. Most of the panel was appointed last year, the CDC website shows. "Make no mistake: Politicizing the ACIP as Secretary Kennedy is doing will undermine public trust under the guise of improving it."

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store