so i can start right with the argument or i can give you a little bit of background about robert i was thirty two years old at the time these proceedings and how much of teeth problems he had been trying and robert voluntarily took anti anxiety medication to help with that even so during this time he had been living with his mother who uses a wheelchair and he would help her with errands and would help her home  help her with getting around and he also took care of his sister's children at home and when his sister and her husband who drove a truck were on the road robert was good with motors and the family would like him to keep their vehicles and other machines in good working order and robert was glad to do that then in july of two thousand and sixteen robert was requires three things one that the suffering be due to mental illness two that it that the suffering not be a recitation of of mental illness and three that it be objective the person must according to the statute be exhibiting suffering this is not supposed to be a subjective  something's opinion that a person is suffering or maybe suffering here robert what if not suffering he was going to groups and classes he was participating in the ones he was eating and showering he was speaking to lately with his doctor he advocated appropriately for himself he explained to his doctor that he felt anxious and depressed because of his teeth issues and pain and then in the hospital he said he felt anxious for her to be on life support and she recovered so when those things were happening in the hospital oh robert that with the inspector general and he said this was something he learned about in the groups and classes that like to know that if if you are having concerns are you know that you don't you don't do something negative about it you do something positive about it and one thing that you can do is to make a complaint to the proper authorities and that's just what he did so that is not a couple of suffering that's an example of taking positive action i'm so he's not st of all he's not exhibiting suffering because of mental illness we know from even the doctor had not require any emergency interventions for the harmful behavior on you that he had had that means he had had no regency medication or strangers occlusion while he was  there so here the doctor in the state the trial judge decided that robert met the suffering element without really him was whether he did it how and that's not the code intent as we know from the desert trial courts can continue defining suffering just because a person has symptoms of a mental illness or because their hospital anxious or like here because they are stressed for reasons unrelated to a mental illness  one of the medications the doctor requested in the petition was an anti anxiety medication the doctor and robert both testified that robert was currently willing to take the anti anxiety medication on the medication h taking at home and by robert's and his mother's testimony he had done one of her own taking only anti anxiety medication we know that chronic pain was appropriate for robert because the doctor named  controlling medication and the responder does not want it must prove by clear and convincing method by critic of if the evidence that the medication the respondent is willing to take has been explored and found it appropriate if the state does not make the showing the state cannot comply with section s requirement that other less restrictive services better floored and found it appropriate and then the water for voluntary medication should be reverse it may be those records were hard to find i don't know it sounds good to see think it's always good to be able to look at past records but i think maybe the bigger concern here is fillings he's allowed to take the pain and be reducing medication so in a lot of ways he's being treated as as a person with capacity we know in the he's very familiar with this man this is not as we used to get real health cases in here where we actually had someone testifying at the hearing when the this doctor said he had anxiety and psychosis those are different things you don't take and i'm trying to come up i mean it's too easy to take down  something that can be addressed at this time but i would do that as cited by the state if israel is exactly on point because it points out the fan that the big difference between missiles t doctor and the respondent sitting right i'm willing to take the klan and i think that helped me in the past and i continue to be willing to take it on and what we have here is a problem or  whole bunch of other stuff saying to that psychiatric evidence and when people have a say in their treatment it means they are more likely to seek it out if they need it again in the future rather than reminding us interaction we want to encourage that voluntary acceptance because we don't want to have to constantly look to the courts to force it we want people to come to that decision on their own when they come to that decision on their and eventually people will do once direct debits we encourage our clients to do advanced directives to empower themselves to take the court found that if you might notice that this is the same doctor from denver stuck on and think they're going to cure every last problem of a patient in their care and that's not what the navajo statute is about we're looking to help in the most in the least intrusive leg and