![]() ![]() mental health systems that today bear little resemblance to the mental health systems in existence when many of these laws were enacted. This article examines the current state of emergency hold law and identifies important questions about the emergency hold mechanism in contemporary U.S. Over the past three decades, this pathway has coexisted with a range of new approaches to the management of people with mental illnesses, including the proliferation of police-based crisis intervention models and other forms of jail diversion ( 3). (The term “gravely disabled” refers to a person who, because of a mental illness, is unable to meet his or her basic needs, including the ability to meet the need for food, shelter, and basic self-care.) Toward that end, most states included an emergency hold period as part of the commitment process, during which a person could be placed in custody while the required determinations were made.Įmergency holds potentially play an important role as a bridge between people in crisis and emergency mental health services that individuals may not have otherwise been willing or able to access. ![]() ![]() One such change, the addition of the requirement that persons affected by mental illness be either a danger to themselves or others or gravely disabled, required that this determination be made before initiation of long-term commitment proceedings and that evidence of the determination be available in a commitment hearing ( 2). The reforms in civil commitment statutes that occurred in the late 1960s and early 1970s led to profound changes in both substantive and procedural aspects of involuntary hospitalization ( 1). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |