because the issue of whether sleep or i guess you could also say there would be evidence of substance here where we don't eat you know we should go into the other category but she would constitutionally do it under the issue of suffering doctor said her physical health was fine at this point she wasn't placed in restraints the seclusion you know she did an arm at the bridge didn't interfere with other patients and was concerned about the many phone calls again not just have a mental health component in the sense that they're not trying to improve her mental health ability to function it again and you're saying it has to have some impact on her physical wellbeing right that is very dangerous to herself or others are visible because you know you have a right to refuse treatment you know and you are also there's the issue under the public interest in section because as the respondent alluded to this is really just a sufficiency of the evidence cl and the law states it's well settled that sufficiency of the evidence claims do not fall under the public interest exception for obvious reasons they would not die public official because  it was just the resolution would be so specific to the evidence in that isolated case and the public interest exception is not intended definition of suffering but suffering is a very popular word it is well understood and there is an adequate insufficient definition in the dictionary and the trial court had no problem applying the of this case to the term suffering so there is no need uses case as an opportunity to define suffering this is you know this some other arguments are that the sea did not provide sufficient evidence that even if we applied this cool beans standard that there had to be some kind of physical manifestation we would still just be determining whether there was sufficient evidence to meet that standard correct correct and  adequate and here this i just found that you know her paranoia was sufficient enough to constitute suffering and it's time since it indicate that she is daughter was her psychologist will she definitely has made me think anyone disputes that she was suffering from a mental illness and however every person suffering from a mental illness who is involuntarily committed is not also automatically subject to involuntary medication i mean there are two different standards so don't you have to prove something more of them mental illness to involuntarily require medication well i yeah i think i think you i think so what i mean if you look at leas mean that is pretty much everyone that has a mental ill this might be affected to this extent and the extent to which they responded and i the cases were active warrants it involuntary medication but i would argue just i think that the state could stand at all that the the death of her mental illness involuntary medication and the doctor himself said she was not a threat to herself or others directly i did and i i think the the aggregate her jailhouse behavior the reason why she's right there being arrested the extent of her hearing oya she wasn't sleeping well she was getting into other patients business she was not able to be treated through other methods and she is there because she's was found on the fifth i think the aggregate of all of those things is enough to she the order for involuntary medication was was was proper i think that the psychiatry was was trying to treat under these circumstances she is she falls under what is required to be  she wasn't sleeping well and she was threatening to people when she was arrested she was writing to an officer she was suffering pain and unfortunately because as i mentioned before under psychiatrist all things in terms of suffering from the use the symptoms this is suffering from pain  we get to the key to your ration of functioning i mean why are these events cheat the evidence is she was doing fine she was caring for some other people and and and doing well and then she ends up thinking she's