Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Editorial

The tricky question of involuntary commitment

Deciding to get a person with a serious mental illness into treatment is one of the most important steps families can take to protect a loved one's health and well-being. Unfortunately, it also can be one of the most difficult. Many mentally ill people don't realize they are sick and resist visiting a doctor, participating in therapy or taking medications, even to the point of becoming a danger to themselves or others. When that happens, families may have no choice but to try to commit them to an institution against their will. Yet doing so can be a frustrating and painful experience.

That's because the rules for involuntary commitments in Maryland are among the strictest in the country, even for people who obviously are in need of immediate help. Advocates for the families of mentally ill people say that too often individuals in crisis are turned away from hospital emergency rooms because the standard for judging whether they pose a danger to themselves or others is interpreted too narrowly. As a result, people don't get the help they need, their symptoms become worse, and eventually they end up at even greater risk of harming themselves or others.

A bill passed by the Maryland Senate this year is designed to make involuntary commitment of a close relative easier for families by expanding the definition of danger to self or others. Advocates of the measure say that under current law, hospital and other officials often define dangerousness solely on the basis of whether a patient might commit suicide or hurt someone else if not admitted to an institution. They are proposing changes that would broaden the definition of dangerousness to cases in which health care officials have a reasonable expectation that a person might become dangerous even if he doesn't exhibit serious symptoms at the time he is evaluated.

The measure has not yet been voted on in the House, where state Department of Health and Mental Hygiene officials testified against the measure last month. The department criticized the bill as overly broad and vague because it could be applied to many people who don't need to be hospitalized. Department officials said it would also leave hospitals without clear guidelines for admitting patients. Health professionals and administrative court judges who make commitment decisions already consider a range of factors in assessing dangerousness, the department noted, and in any case the proposed task force called for in the bill would duplicate a similar body included in the governor's gun legislation this year.

Current Maryland law requires health care professionals, police, clinical social workers and others to carefully weigh a person's need for treatment against the unavoidable infringement on personal liberties that confinement in a hospital entails. In virtually every case, making such judgments involves a difficult balancing act. To be committed involuntarily to an institution, a patient must be evaluated by a physician and a psychologist, or by two physicians, both of whom must agree that the person poses a danger to himself or others, shows symptoms of a mental disorder, is unwilling or unable to come into the hospital voluntarily and that a hospital is the least restrictive setting in which the illness can be treated.

State health officials argue these criteria are sufficient to confine people who need immediate help and keep them there until they can be safely released into a less restrictive environment. At the same time, the civil liberties protections they offer are robust enough to protect people who don't need to be in a hospital from being committed against their will.

These are thorny issues that need to be resolved before any solution is set in stone, and the best place to do that is probably in the working group established under the governor's gun legislation, which is far more likely than the Senate bill to become law this year.

While it might seem that expanding eligibility for involuntary commitments should be a relatively straightforward affair, in fact the issue is exceedingly complex and deserves sustained, careful scrutiny — something it is unlikely to get in the waning days of the legislative season. Given the realities of the calendar, it probably makes more sense to charge the governor's working group with studying the matter further rather than to rush through a last-minute compromise that risks creating more problems than it solves.

  • Text NEWS to 70701 to get Baltimore Sun local news text alerts
  • Copyright © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
    Related Content
    • Bowing to North Korea's film critic
      Bowing to North Korea's film critic

      By most accounts, "The Interview," the comedy that revolves around a bumbling plot to assassinate North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, is not high art but the sort of sophomoric, gross-out shtick that Hollywood produces in bulk these days. But most Americans will likely never be able to judge...

    • Welcome back, Caret
      Welcome back, Caret

      In selecting University of Massachusetts System President Robert Caret as its next chancellor, the University System of Maryland has kept up a tradition of leadership by those with deep ties to the state and its higher education traditions. Mr. Caret spent 29 years as a professor, dean,...

    • Good riddance, 113th
      Good riddance, 113th

      Imagine if you ran a business but you didn't tell your customers exactly what they would be charged for your products or services until nearly the end of the year. Well, you don't have to work your imagination too hard because that's essentially what Congress just did. In one of their last...

    • Torture is not a partisan issue
      Torture is not a partisan issue

      I have been researching interrogation and teaching military ethics to midshipmen at the U.S. Naval Academy for years. I looked forward to the release of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report on the CIA interrogation program to answer some specific questions raised in the course...

    • Addiction services needed more than statistics
      Addiction services needed more than statistics

      It is so frustrating to read about policymakers and their obsession with identifying the "numbers of heroin users." While they're busy counting, addicts are dying while on waiting lists for treatment.

    • A compromise on Howard County nutritional standards?
      A compromise on Howard County nutritional standards?

      Lost in the noise of the debate over Howard County Government's nutritional standards regarding sugary drinks are a few key questions. First, when, if at all, should government act in response to growing evidence linking certain behaviors to premature mortality and increased health care...