<b>American History After 1998 on the Forcible Administration of Psychotropic Drugs - #Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W Decision to File a Habeas Corpus Complaint After January 10th 2016 - #Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA)</b>
Creators: name: Ayele (a.k.a) W, Michael A.
Publisher: name: figshare
Year: 2023
Subjects: classificationCode: 420602
subject: Health equity
classificationCode: 420603
subject: Health promotion
classificationCode: 420604
subject: Injury prevention
classificationCode: 420605
subject: Preventative health care
classificationCode: 420606
subject: Social determinants of health
classificationCode: 420306
subject: Health care administration
classificationCode: 420309
subject: Health management
classificationCode: 420311
subject: Health systems
classificationCode: 420313
subject: Mental health services
classificationCode: 480411
subject: Media and communication law
classificationCode: 480413
subject: Race, ethnicity and law
classificationCode: 440204
subject: Crime and social justice
classificationCode: 440213
subject: Race/ethnicity and crime

description: According to the National Council on Disability (NCD), “<i>involuntary treatment is extremely rare outside the psychiatric system, allowable only in such cases as unconsciousness or the inability to communicate. People with psychiatric disabilities, on the other hand, even when they vigorously protest treatments they do not want, are routinely subjected to them anyway, on the justification that they ‘lack insight’ or are unable to recognize their need for treatment because of their ‘mental illness.’ In practice, ‘lack of insight’ becomes disagreement with the treating professional, and people who disagree are labeled ‘noncompliant’ or ‘uncooperative with treatment.’ After years of contact with a system that routinely does not recognize their preferences or desires, many people with psychiatric disabilities become resigned to their fate and cease to protest openly. Although this is described in the psychiatric literature as ‘compliance,’ it is actually learned helplessness (also known as ‘internalized oppression’) that is incompatible with hope and with the possibility of recovery. Traditionally, involuntary commitment has involved the loss of liberty and confinement in a facility. However, more recently the concept of involuntary outpatient commitment (IOC) has become more widespread. IOC laws have been passed in nearly two-thirds of the states, and similar legislation has been introduced in Congress. IOC involves court-ordered treatment (almost always medication) for people who do not meet the standards for inpatient commitment (physical dangerousness to self or others). With more states enacting IOC laws, more people with psychiatric disabilities are being forced to take medications and treatments that can be painful and debilitating. At the same time, the desire of many people labeled with psychiatric disabilities for voluntary services that affect their real-life needs (such as housing, job training, and social support) seldom receive adequate funding. One of the consequences of IOC laws is that they often take money from voluntary programs that promote independence and redirect it toward ever more restrictive and punitive programs.</i>”<br><br>The NCD have also previously noted that “<i>anyone with a psychiatric disability, in fact anyone deemed by a mental health professional or police officer with little or no training to have such a disability, can be legally deprived of their freedom simply with an order from a judge, law officer, or medical professional. The due process procedures to challenge those decisions, and the laws and agencies that are supposed to protect and defend the legal rights of people affected by such orders, are often inadequate, ineffective, underfunded, inaccessible, or disregarded. Even when people are entitled to hearings, these are usually brief, and representation by counsel is often inadequate or nonexistent.</i><i> </i><i>(…) Neither law enforcement agencies nor the judicial and correctional systems have programs and policies in place to address the particular needs of people labeled with psychiatric disabilities while at the same time ensuring that they receive equal justice under law. When they are the victims of crime, testimony revealed that people labeled with psychiatric disabilities cannot rely on law enforcement agencies to protect them. The judicial system also fails them. Studies have found that rates of incarceration for people labeled with psychiatric disabilities are almost double the comparable rates in the general population. While it is often assumed that people labeled with psychiatric disabilities are in prison because they are particularly violent and dangerous, in fact, large numbers of prisoners with psychiatric disabilities are in prison for crimes that would not normally result in incarceration for nondisabled people. Inmates with psychiatric disabilities serve longer sentences than other prisoners and are less likely to receive voluntary treatment for their disabilities. Treatment in penal settings almost always consists of drugs, most often without any meaningful informed consent. In fact, imprisonment may actually exacerbate the symptoms of people labeled with psychiatric disabilities. (…) The Police Executive Research Forum (PERF), a national organization composed of chief executives from municipal, county, and state law enforcement agencies, offers a training curriculum and model policy that addresses police response to people labeled with psychiatric disabilities. PERF's trainer's guide, Police Response to People with Mental Illness, also covers the ADA and community policing approaches, including the voluntary and involuntary commitment process, arresting, and interviewing people with mental illness. However, as is typical of such training procedures, these materials were developed without input from people labeled with psychiatric disabilities. The training guide notes, ‘It is not the role of the police officer to make the determination that a person should be committed.’ Testimony revealed, however, that police do not always adhere to this policy.</i>”<br><br>Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W takes full-responsibility for this publication on the subject of American History After 1998 with regards to The Forcible Administration of Psychotropic Drugs. Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W is a former employee of the Missouri Department of Mental Health (MODMH) Fulton State Hospital (FSH). He is also an alumnus of Westminster College (located Fulton, Missouri). He graduated with a Bachelor of Arts (B.A) Degree from Westminster College on Saturday, December 31<sup>st</sup> 2016. As a former employee of the MODMH (FSH) who is also an alumnus of Westminster College (Fulton, Missouri), Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W has on (or around) September 12<sup>th</sup> 2021 expressed in writing grave concerns about the language used by the Director of the Division of Behavioral Health (DBH) when drafting and implementing Department of Regulation (DOR) Number 4.152 because it has the potential to create circumstances ripe for abuse, which could adversely impact people with disabilities (PWD). As a matter of principle, Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W unequivocally condemns discrimination on the bases of gender, racial background, national origin, sexual orientation, religious affiliation and/or disability status.<br><br>Be well. Take care. Keep yourselves at arms distance.<br><br>Michael A. Ayele (a.k.a) W – Association for the Advancement of Civil Liberties (AACL)<br>Anti-Racist Human Rights Activist<br>Audio-Visual Media Analyst<br>Anti-Propaganda Journalist<br><br>