A question on the mental heath aspect?

[Grassman]

—Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally to report the threat to a mental health director who would then have to report serious threats to the state Department of Criminal Justice Services.


Would this violate doctor/patient confidentiality agreements? Wouldn't this erode any truth that the potential patient has with his therapist? If this is forced treatment who's to say they just won't lie? And this whole business of doctors reporting patients who they "feel" are a threat is scary in itself. One step further to a police state.

 

[Grassman]

*should read "health" in title*

 

[Skribs]

I majored in psychology, but I never got to the law aspect of it (only got my bachelor's). Personally, I think if there is a credible threat, and the therapist does not take action, then he is partially responsible.

My issue with the legislation is that it specifies the gun. It should read "Require a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to commit violence to report the threat..."

"Dr. Johnson, did your patient tell you he was going to go to Local Town Middle School with a samurai sword and slash every person he saw?"
"Yes."
"Why didn't you report it?"
"The law specifies that I have to do that with guns. He used a sword."
"Oh...right..."

 

[JohnBT]

I would be surprised if every state didn't already have a law on this. Here is Virginia's.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+54.1-2400.1

"§ 54.1-2400.1. Mental health service providers; duty to protect third parties; immunity."

Selected sections:

"B. A mental health service provider has a duty to take precautions to protect third parties from violent behavior or other serious harm only when the client has orally, in writing, or via sign language, communicated to the provider a specific and immediate threat to cause serious bodily injury or death to an identified or readily identifiable person or persons, if the provider reasonably believes, or should believe according to the standards of his profession, that the client has the intent and ability to carry out that threat immediately or imminently."

"D. A mental health service provider shall not be held civilly liable to any person for:

1. Breaching confidentiality with the limited purpose of protecting third parties"

 

[pseudonymity]

It is much worse than you suspect - you do not need to be treated for any mental health issue, a "mental health" professional can use their divining skills to guess that you may cause serious harm and you are done. There is no way for you to find out what you did to get yourself unarmed, and the "professional" is essentially untouchable, not least of all due to the fact that you have no way of identifying them, let alone a way to prove they did not act in good faith.

(A) FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, THE TERM "MENTAL HEALTH PROFES
SIONAL" SHALL INCLUDE A PHYSICIAN, PSYCHOLOGIST, REGISTERED NURSE OR
LICENSED CLINICAL SOCIAL WORKER.
(B) NOTWITHSTANDING ANY OTHER LAW TO THE CONTRARY, WHEN A MENTAL
HEALTH PROFESSIONAL CURRENTLY PROVIDING TREATMENT SERVICES TO A PERSON
DETERMINES, IN THE EXERCISE OF REASONABLE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT, THAT
SUCH PERSON IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN CONDUCT THAT WOULD RESULT IN SERIOUS
HARM TO SELF OR OTHERS, HE OR SHE SHALL BE REQUIRED TO REPORT, AS SOON
AS PRACTICABLE, TO THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY SERVICES, OR THE DIRECTOR'S
DESIGNEE, WHO SHALL REPORT TO THE DIVISION OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES
WHENEVER HE OR SHE AGREES THAT THE PERSON IS LIKELY TO ENGAGE IN SUCH
CONDUCT.

 

[JohnBT]

Which is it? First you stated:

"you do not need to be treated for any mental health issue"

Then you posted what I assume is text from some law:

" WHEN A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL CURRENTLY PROVIDING TREATMENT SERVICES TO A PERSON"

 

[Queen_of_Thunder]

Nothing like throwing Due Process under the bus.

 

[MedWheeler]

So, we had a few highly-publicized cases of recently-post-partum mothers killing their children while being impaired by and/or treated for post-partum depression. Will all women who have recently birthed a child now be considered at risk for harmful behavior, and their households be declared to be "gun-free"?

If so, how many of these women will decide not to seek treatment that would certainly be appropriate for fear of this, and then have their conditions deteriorate until they, in fact, do become a risk?

The same question can be also asked regarding military service personnel returning from combat tours..

 

[Redlg155]

The key worrd here is SPECIFIC threat. This has pretty much been the law of the land even before the NY law - and others that will be surely proposed. If you tell your Psychologist, Social Worker, Preist or other individual that you intend to do X to X when he / she gets.home today, you will be reported.

The gray area is when make non specific threats or have the capacity to do great harm but may not deemed a current threat to the safety to the public or specific individuals. I'm sure the govt. wants these people reported as well.

Be on the lookout for bills dealing with folks who take psychiatric meds as well. You think...wow, meds...that is risk. Well, how about folks who take anti-depression meds? You would be amazed at how many folks are prescribed such meds

 

[JohnBT]

The last numbers I saw said that 20% of U.S. adults were taking meds for anxiety, depression and other mental health issues. That's 1 in 5 for the math phobic.

Looks like the numbers are holding or even increasing.

Google " anti anxiety meds percentage of u.s. " and see.