Latest news with #Eidsvik

Calgary Herald

Opinion: New compassionate intervention act offers better protections for individuals

In 2015, I testified in the trial of J.H. v. Alberta Health Services, regarding a man who had been involuntarily hospitalized for nine months under provisions of Alberta's Mental Health Act (MHA), but who was, as his psychiatrist also testified, 'not getting any specific treatment' for his alleged mental disorder. Article content Article content Justice Kristine Eidsvik determined that J.H. 'did not meet . . . any of the criteria' the act identifies as required for detention and that he should be freed. Eidsvik ultimately ruled that certain provisions of the MHA were unconstitutional and invalid — and her decision was upheld on appeal. Article content Article content Among the multiple legislative and procedural concerns she articulated, Eidsvik noted the vagueness of concepts such as 'harm' (as no definition of 'harm' appears in the legislation) and stated that such a key element said to justify involuntary detention needs to be clear to physicians and patients alike. The court also found that the initial month of detention had been decided based on the opinion of a physician who had assessed J.H. for a total of four minutes, that J.H. was not advised of his right to counsel, that he was not told of his right to appeal his detention and that he had been treated without his consent despite the lack of the required paperwork. Article content Article content More broadly, the court noted 'the lack of a criteria that ties detention with treatment,' which was viewed as being the purpose of the act. Article content Last week, the Alberta government introduced Bill 53, the Compassionate Intervention Act (CIA), which would permit involuntary detention and treatment of individuals 'who are likely to cause harm to themselves or to others due to severe substance use or addiction issues.' Importantly, the first substantive section of the CIA provides a definition of 'harm' — 'in the case of an adult, substantial harm to the adult or to others within a reasonable time as a result of the adult's substance use or addiction.' Article content The next section then identifies seven factors that must be part of the assessment of risk, plus a catch-all: 'any other factor related to the adult's substance use or addiction that the Compassionate Intervention Commission considers relevant.' Article content There are also provisions for determining the severity of the person's substance use or addiction. Article content Under the CIA, an application to have a person assessed must come from an adult family member, a regulated health professional or a police officer who has interacted with the person. The application is reviewed by a lawyer, who decides whether the criteria of 'harm' has been met. Article content If the person is found to be 'likely to cause harm without intervention,' then an apprehension order would follow, authorizing police to take the person to a 'compassionate intervention facility,' while also requiring police to inform the person of their right to counsel. The order permits the person to be held for up to 72 hours and for a treatment team to stabilize and assess them.