David Baxter PhD
Late Founder
Kendra's lies
by Nancy Koenigsberg
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Other states' successes were grossly exaggerated in an attempt to squelch honest, productive debate
I take issue with Mary Zdanowicz's commentary ("For the Law," Sept. 7, Insight & Opinion).
Zdanowicz, who is executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) of Arlington, Va., misrepresents the provisions of the proposed New Mexico Kendra's Law.
The proposed law is not, as Zdanowicz claims, narrowly drafted to apply only to the "most severely mentally ill citizens" and to the "paranoid and delusional."
In truth, the law would allow for the forced outpatient commitment of many individuals who pose no danger to anyone, and who are competent and have every right to make their own treatment choices.
Zdanowicz contends that 42 states have enacted this "proven treatment mechanism." This is simply untrue.
Although the laws of 42 states provide for some form of outpatient commitment, only a handful of states (such as New York), have broad and aggressive laws like the Kendra's Law that TAC has been lobbying for in New Mexico.
Ironically, TAC's home state of Virginia has not enacted a Kendra's Law. In Virginia, as in most other states, outpatient commitment is used only as a less-restrictive alternative for individuals who meet the standard for inpatient commitment, but who can be safely served in the community instead.
By contrast, the Kendra's Law as proposed in New Mexico, would allow for the forced medication and supervision of individuals who do not even come close to meeting the criteria for inpatient commitment.
Zdanowicz grossly exaggerates "other states' successes with assisted outpatient treatment," in an attempt to portray TAC's radical minority position as one that has received widespread support among the states. It has not.
Zdanowicz points to Duc Minh Pham, who shot and injured an Albuquerque police officer three years ago, as evidence of New Mexico's need for a Kendra's Law, ignoring the well-documented fact Pham suffered from a traumatic brain injury.
Zdanowicz argues that the lack of a Kendra's Law in New Mexico results in our law enforcement officers "end[ing] up on the front line." Ironically, the Kendra's Law being promoted by TAC would result in more difficult police encounters with consumers, and might actually cause an escalation with certain individuals who are posing no harm to anyone and who would cooperate with accessible outreach and treatment, rather than coercion.
Perhaps recognizing her failure to identify an appropriate New Mexico "poster child" for Kendra's Law, Zdanowicz points to a "lone audience member," who spoke briefly at the New Mexico Behavioral Health Collaborative symposium on the pros and cons of Kendra's Law.
In a giant leap of logic, Zdanowicz concludes this audience member demonstrates the need for a Kendra's Law in New Mexico, because Zdanowicz believed this woman was paranoid and implies she would therefore be more likely to become violent. Clearly, Zdanowicz is doing nothing more than grasping at straws.
Zdanowicz fails to explain how she is qualified to speak to the "New Mexico mental health community [which she contends] refuses to take true responsibility," or to the availability of New Mexico's mental health resources.
Zdanowicz dismisses New Mexico's severe shortage of mental health resources as nothing more than a "red herring," and instead blames the would-be consumers of inadequate or nonexistent mental health resources for "refus[ing] treatment."
Finally, in an apparent attempt to squelch further public dialogue on this complicated and sensitive issue, Zdanowicz urges New Mexico to "stop talking and start acting."
Instead, I would urge New Mexico to keep talking and start really thinking, before enacting drastic knee-jerk legislation that would not only fail to achieve its stated goals, but which would also create a tremendous injustice to many harmless and innocent New Mexican citizens.
by Nancy Koenigsberg
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Other states' successes were grossly exaggerated in an attempt to squelch honest, productive debate
I take issue with Mary Zdanowicz's commentary ("For the Law," Sept. 7, Insight & Opinion).
Zdanowicz, who is executive director of the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC) of Arlington, Va., misrepresents the provisions of the proposed New Mexico Kendra's Law.
The proposed law is not, as Zdanowicz claims, narrowly drafted to apply only to the "most severely mentally ill citizens" and to the "paranoid and delusional."
In truth, the law would allow for the forced outpatient commitment of many individuals who pose no danger to anyone, and who are competent and have every right to make their own treatment choices.
Zdanowicz contends that 42 states have enacted this "proven treatment mechanism." This is simply untrue.
Although the laws of 42 states provide for some form of outpatient commitment, only a handful of states (such as New York), have broad and aggressive laws like the Kendra's Law that TAC has been lobbying for in New Mexico.
Ironically, TAC's home state of Virginia has not enacted a Kendra's Law. In Virginia, as in most other states, outpatient commitment is used only as a less-restrictive alternative for individuals who meet the standard for inpatient commitment, but who can be safely served in the community instead.
By contrast, the Kendra's Law as proposed in New Mexico, would allow for the forced medication and supervision of individuals who do not even come close to meeting the criteria for inpatient commitment.
Zdanowicz grossly exaggerates "other states' successes with assisted outpatient treatment," in an attempt to portray TAC's radical minority position as one that has received widespread support among the states. It has not.
Zdanowicz points to Duc Minh Pham, who shot and injured an Albuquerque police officer three years ago, as evidence of New Mexico's need for a Kendra's Law, ignoring the well-documented fact Pham suffered from a traumatic brain injury.
Zdanowicz argues that the lack of a Kendra's Law in New Mexico results in our law enforcement officers "end[ing] up on the front line." Ironically, the Kendra's Law being promoted by TAC would result in more difficult police encounters with consumers, and might actually cause an escalation with certain individuals who are posing no harm to anyone and who would cooperate with accessible outreach and treatment, rather than coercion.
Perhaps recognizing her failure to identify an appropriate New Mexico "poster child" for Kendra's Law, Zdanowicz points to a "lone audience member," who spoke briefly at the New Mexico Behavioral Health Collaborative symposium on the pros and cons of Kendra's Law.
In a giant leap of logic, Zdanowicz concludes this audience member demonstrates the need for a Kendra's Law in New Mexico, because Zdanowicz believed this woman was paranoid and implies she would therefore be more likely to become violent. Clearly, Zdanowicz is doing nothing more than grasping at straws.
Zdanowicz fails to explain how she is qualified to speak to the "New Mexico mental health community [which she contends] refuses to take true responsibility," or to the availability of New Mexico's mental health resources.
Zdanowicz dismisses New Mexico's severe shortage of mental health resources as nothing more than a "red herring," and instead blames the would-be consumers of inadequate or nonexistent mental health resources for "refus[ing] treatment."
Finally, in an apparent attempt to squelch further public dialogue on this complicated and sensitive issue, Zdanowicz urges New Mexico to "stop talking and start acting."
Instead, I would urge New Mexico to keep talking and start really thinking, before enacting drastic knee-jerk legislation that would not only fail to achieve its stated goals, but which would also create a tremendous injustice to many harmless and innocent New Mexican citizens.
