
Is forced treatment for the mentally ill ever humane?
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
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Hindustan Times
4 hours ago
- Hindustan Times
Who won the Pentagon's fitness face-off? Pete Hegseth outshines RFK Jr in epic push-up challenge
Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were seen squaring off in a pull-up and push-up challenge at the Pentagon. Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Pete Hegseth participated in a fitness challenge at the Pentagon.(U.S. Department of Defense) The 'Pete and Bobby challenge' was set up as part of the Trump administration's broader push to encourage Americans to ditch 'fat' and embrace 'fit' under the 'Make America Healthy Again' (MAHA) movement. Surrounded by Navy and Marine service members, the two officials attempted to complete 50 pullups and 100 pushups in under five minutes. 'We had our big Pete and Bobby challenge today, 50 pull-ups. 100 push-ups. You try to get under five minutes,' Kennedy said in a video shared with Fox News Digital. ALSO READ| Harvey Milk: Pete Hegseth says naval ship to be renamed after Oscar V. Peterson, here's why Both put in a strong showing, though neither cracked the five-minute mark. Hegseth crossed the finish line just over the limit, but managed to edge out the 71-year-old Kennedy. 'We got close. I was about 5:25,' Hegseth said, before turning to RFK JR. with a nod: 'You were right behind me.' Hegseth, Kennedy launch tour to reinstate military fitness standards Several Marines who were watching joined in, with a few finishing in under four minutes. One service member even managed to complete the challenge in less than three minutes, Hegseth claimed. 'It was President Trump who inspired us to do this,' Kennedy said. 'This is the beginning of our tour, challenging Americans to get back in shape, eat better, but also, you need to get out and exercise.' Sharing a recent headline about rising obesity rates among service members, Hegseth wrote on X: 'Completely unacceptable. This is what happens when standards are IGNORED — and this is what we are changing. REAL fitness & weight standards are here. We will be FIT, not FAT.' 'Secretary Duffy, you're invited to do the Pete and Bobby challenge. Can you do it in under five minutes? 50 pull-ups, 100 push-ups. What do you think?' Hegseth asked. ALSO READ| 'Good chance of ending Russia-Ukraine war': What Donald Trump, Volodymyr Zelensky said after key meeting 'Thank you, President Trump, for setting the example. Presidential physical fitness. Make America Healthy Again. Fit, not fat. We're going to have a war-fighting force, young men and women who are prepared to defend the nation. We're doing it as a team. Join us.'


News18
4 hours ago
- News18
From Tea Tree Oil to Honey Mask, Hacks That Actually Work for Pimples
An estimated 50 million Americans suffer from acne annually, making it one of the most prevalent skin conditions worldwide.


Time of India
16 hours ago
- Time of India
What is an aortic aneurysm?: "Silent killer" heart condition you must know about
Image credits: Getty Images 9,904 Americans died due to aortic aneurysms in 2019, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The disease which has minimal to no symptoms is termed as a "silent killer" by most medical professionals due to the lack of knowledge and timely diagnosis. Identifying an aortic aneurysm Aorta is the body's largest artery that carries all the blood from the heart to the chest and abdomen. Various factors such as aging, medical conditions or use of tobacco can weaken the typically strong walls of the aorta, making it unable to handle the force and blood flow and form a bulge inside it. As the condition progresses, it expands and enlarges to an extent that it ruptures and causes life-threatening internal bleeding. There are two types of aortic aneurysms- thoracic aneurysms which are in the chest and abdominal aneurysms which occur in the part of the aorta that runs through the belly. Causes of aortic aneurysms Image credits: Getty Images While the exact causes are unknown, age, gender and a bicuspid aortic valve- a congenital heart defect where the aortic valve has two cusps instead of three are common. They occur in about 1.4% adults between the ages of 50-84 in the US and are four times more likely in males. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like If you have a mouse, play this game for 1 minute Navy Quest Undo Risk factors of aortic aneurysms Certain factors that can increase your risk of developing an aortic aneurysm, these include: history of tobacco use older age sex at birth family history of the disease high blood pressure other known aneurysms inheriting connective-tissue disease Symptoms of aortic aneurysms Image credits: Getty Images The disease has no symptoms until the aorta is close to rupturing. Then you may feel a deep pain in your lower back or belly, a pulsing sensation in the belly, shortness of breath, low blood pressure, fainting, nausea and clammy skin. Treatment of aortic aneurysms Since there are no symptoms, doctors diagnose it with the help of an abdominal duplex ultrasound or computed tomography angiogram (CTA). Its treatment depends on the size of the aneurysm, ranging from surveillance to surgery.