Tonchi Weaver testified against South Dakota House Bill 1019.

 

She and many others think it is a BAD bill.  Her testimony explains why;

Since my sister was about 16 year old, she has been dealing with the horrors of schizophrenia, and because I am her sister who loves her, I have been dealing with it too.  I see great potential for serious harm in HB1019.  Its purpose is to force certain prisoners in county jails to be administered psychotropic drugs.  HB1019 is a companion bill to HB1020, and although it is hard to speak to one without also including the other, I will focus on HB1019 and list the 10 major pitfalls.

1.  – While psychotropic drugs are administered involuntarily to prisoners in the South Dakota State Penitentiary, prison populations are far more constant.  The people there have been tried and convicted, they are under constant observation, and are known to their jailers and medical personnel.

Prisoners in county jails, however, are much more transient.  Some are awaiting trial, and some are INNOCENT of the charges brought against them.

People in county jails enter into incarceration with unknown levels of street drugs, other chemical substances, or prescribed medications in their bloodstreams.  They may have unknown health conditions, allergies, or neurological disorders that can have tragic results when mixed with inappropriate psychotropic drugs

 

2. –  The makeup of the panel before which a prisoner will have a hearing to determine if psychotropic drugs will be administered, requires that at least one of the members shall be a ‘physician’, but not specifically a ‘psychiatrist’.  This indicates that the ‘cookbook’, or ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to prescribing medication will be applied.  That approach can be counterproductive and quite possibly harmful in the very intricate realm of treating mental illness.

 

3. –  There is no requirement in this law that the physician on the panel observe or examine the prisoner, except for at the time of his appearance before the panel.  “The law takes for granted that doctors and lesser practitioners will always act professionally, and that the scope of their knowledge and experience will be adequate for any situation.”

 

4. –  The prisoner is allowed representation by ‘a disinterested lay advisor knowledgeable about psychological issues’, but there is no advocate allowed who knows the prisoner or anything about him, such as a friend or a family member.   The law does not indicate that the family of the individual will be notified of such treatment.

 

5. –  The prisoner is allowed to appeal the panel’s decision, but someone who is truly mentally ill or under the influence of forced psychotropic drugs – which, by the way, are not specifically identified in this law –  will find the task of mounting a cogent defense or appeal nearly impossible.

 

6. –  Psychotropic drugs are powerful, dangerous, and expensive.  They almost always require frequent blood work, because as any psychiatrist will tell you, it’s not an exact science.  If these drugs are given to someone who is NOT psychotic, serious harm can be done to them physically and psychologically.

 

7. –  In an ’emergency’ – which is not defined or described in this chapter of law – treatment with psychotropic drugs can be ordered for up to ten days if two physicians agree :  It is also unclear who would determine that an ’emergency’ exists..  There is NO REQUIREMENT that the prisoner be seen by either of these physicians, or that one of them be a psychiatrist.  The law implies that they can merely phone in authorization.

 

8. –  If involuntary treatment of a prisoner with psychotropic medication extends beyond 30 days, the attending physician is barred from writing an evaluation to determine if treatment should be continued – the law does not speak to whether or not treatment can be continued with a different drug.

 

9. –  The proponents have said that many of these prisoners have gone “off their meds, and we just want to get them back on them.”  If someone is truly mentally ill and they have suffered a decompensation of the brain, resuming the previous course of treatment is likely to be futile.  They need to be evaluated in a clinical setting and a new course of treatment devised, because their brain is no longer the same brain that responded positively to the previous drug(s).  To resume a previously followed course of treatment will probably not help the prisoner and most likely prolong the psychotic behavior.

 

10. –  The exemption from liability provided for those who act pursuant to this law speaks volumes to its flaws.  The potential for abuse is great, especially for certain vulnerable persons and populations.

 

 

Concerning HB1020:  This law broadens widely the sphere of who can be considered a “qualified mental health professional” by softening and redefining requirements.  There were many inconsistencies in the law as written,  and a good amendment was rejected in committee; please reconsider it if offered today.

 

In the medical field, doctors swear an oath of ethical practice called the Hippocratic Oath in which they pledge to do no harm or injustice.  As a representative, and thereby, a protector of the people, each of you also has a responsibility to do no harm or injustice.  The proponents have told you how exceedingly rare the need for this provision in law is.  I ask you to honor your office and position of trust and vote NO on this bill.

Read the bill HERE      CALL YOUR SD STATE SENATORS TODAY!!!  CLICK HERE FOR ALL SENATE EMAIL ADDRESSES

Please  call Tonchi if you have any questions.

Tonchi Weaver

SD Citizens For Liberty

1306 38th St., Rapid City, SD   57702

348-7521 (h) 390-4078 (c)