Just curious and hoping someone can help

[ngc_7331]

Yup, no therapy at all. It might have been, like someone suggested, because I was in there over a weekend and was released fairly quickly. They did get me set up to see a therapist as an outpatient so I am getting something now. The whole thing seems a little surreal now in retrospect but is absolutely something I hope to never have to do again.

[wagegoth]

I checked around, and those who are admitted, voluntarily or involuntarily, to a mental facility retain the right to refuse ECT and a number of other things, as well.

It's all part of The Lanterman-Petris-Short Act which is part of the California Welfare and Institutions Code ss 5000-5579. The relevant section is 5325-5337.

This is actually some very good info for any who might consider themselves as candidates for mental treatment in the state of California.

^-.-^

The operative section reads as follows:

"5326. The professional person in charge of the facility or his or
her designee may, for good cause, deny a person any of the rights
under Section 5325, except under subdivisions (g) and (h) and the
rights under subdivision (f) may be denied only under the conditions
specified in Section 5326.7. To ensure that these rights are denied
only for good cause, the Director of Mental Health shall adopt
regulations specifying the conditions under which they may be denied.
Denial of a person's rights shall in all cases be entered into the
person's treatment record."

"5326.7. Subject to the provisions of subdivision (f) of Section
5325, convulsive treatment may be administered to an involuntary
patient, including anyone under guardianship or conservatorship, only
if:
(a) The attending or treatment physician enters adequate
documentation in the patient's treatment record of the reasons for
the procedure, that all reasonable treatment modalities have been
carefully considered, and that the treatment is definitely indicated
and is the least drastic alternative available for this patient at
this time. Such statement in the treatment record shall be signed by
the attending and treatment physician or physicians.
(b) A review of the patient's treatment record is conducted by a
committee of two physicians, at least one of whom shall have
personally examined the patient. One physician shall be appointed by
the facility and one shall be appointed by the local mental health
director. Both shall be either board-certified or board-eligible
psychiatrists or board-certified or board-eligible neurologists. This
review committee must unanimously agree with the treatment physician'
s determinations pursuant to subdivision (a). Such agreement shall be
documented in the patient's treatment record and signed by both
physicians.
(c) A responsible relative of the person's choosing and the person'
s guardian or conservator, if there is one, have been given the oral
explanation by the attending physician as required by Section 5326.
2. Should the person desire not to inform a relative or should such
chosen relative be unavailable, this requirement is dispensed with.
(d) The patient gives written informed consent as defined in
Section 5326.5 to the convulsive treatment. Such consent shall be for
a specified maximum number of treatments over a specified maximum
period of time not to exceed 30 days, and shall be revocable at any
time before or between treatments. Such withdrawal of consent may be
either oral or written and shall be given effect immediately.
Additional treatments in number or time, not to exceed 30 days, shall
require a renewed written informed consent.
(e) The patient's attorney, or if none, a public defender
appointed by the court, agrees as to the patient's capacity or
incapacity to give written informed consent and that the patient who
has capacity has given written informed consent.
(f) If either the attending physician or the attorney believes
that the patient does not have the capacity to give a written
informed consent, then a petition shall be filed in superior court to
determine the patient's capacity to give written informed consent.
The court shall hold an evidentiary hearing after giving appropriate
notice to the patient, and within three judicial days after the
petition is filed. At such hearing the patient shall be present and
represented by legal counsel. If the court deems the above-mentioned
attorney to have a conflict of interest, such attorney shall not
represent the patient in this proceeding.
(g) If the court determines that the patient does not have the
capacity to give written informed consent, then treatment may be
performed upon gaining the written informed consent as defined in
Sections 5326.2 and 5326.5 from the responsible relative or the
guardian or the conservator of the patient.
(h) At any time during the course of treatment of a person who has
been deemed incompetent, that person shall have the right to claim
regained competency. Should he do so, the person's competency must be
reevaluated according to subdivisions (e), (f), and (g)."

So, yes, there is some review, but I operate on the principle that you cannot count on the justice system (and I work in it).

[Sapphire Silk]

So, yes, there is some review, but I operate on the principle that you cannot count on the justice system (and I work in it).

Understandable. However, the conditions for involuntary ECT are pretty stringent. A physician who failed to follow them and provide the adequate documentation is a) open to a malpractice lawsuit, b) open to disciplinary action by the Medical Board which could include revocation of his license, and c) open him up to a criminal charge of battery.

[wagegoth]

Understandable. However, the conditions for involuntary ECT are pretty stringent. A physician who failed to follow them and provide the adequate documentation is a) open to a malpractice lawsuit, b) open to disciplinary action by the Medical Board which could include revocation of his license, and c) open him up to a criminal charge of battery.

That's assuming the patient is able, after the treatment, to file a complaint, follow it through, and that the medical board will actually do something about the complaint, instead of protecting the physician. Here, a doctor has to kill multiple patients before they'll actually do anything about him. 80% of malpractice claims that go to trial (don't settle or are dismissed) are decided in favor of the doctor.

[Sapphire Silk]

That's assuming the patient is able, after the treatment, to file a complaint, follow it through, and that the medical board will actually do something about the complaint, instead of protecting the physician. Here, a doctor has to kill multiple patients before they'll actually do anything about him. 80% of malpractice claims that go to trial (don't settle or are dismissed) are decided in favor of the doctor.

That's true nation wide. I won't pretend that the system is perfect because I know its not. However, I don't think a physician would force ECT on an unwilling patient without considerable evidence that it was necessary. Not saying such a thing couldn't happen. Don't believe it happens routinely.

I do some legal nurse consulting on the side. I've seen some pretty egregious malpractice, true. But most of the cases have been either a case of someone who a) massively fucked up and was trying to hide it (ie, not malicious, just stupid) or b) not malpractice at all, but a massive misunderstanding on the part of the patient OR a patient unhappy about an unavoidable bad outcome looking for someone to blame or c) a minor fuckup that exploded into a major problem because of a rare side effect or complication.