2012 conventions 2012 election 2013 session 2013 special election arts arts and culture author ballot measures bomb books budget bullying business charlie hales children clackamas climate change coal courts crime culture culture club democrats drugs economy education environment family film fluoride food gay rights guns handguns health health care health insurance high school history housing immigration international internet kitzhaber law legislature lgbt literary arts living marijuana medicine mental health military minor parties mohamed mohamud movies music native americans news newspaper obama olympics oregon our town parenting pers photography police politcs politics port portland portland business journal portland mayor president prevention public safety religion republicans rnc romney rural salem sam adams sandy hook schools science shooting sports suicide supreme court taxes television terrorism theater third parties timber payments transportation union university of oregon violence washington water wildfire women

The Otises want an expansion of civil commitment criteria, to include "additional significant symptoms." That's cause for alarm. Since we already have the means to address danger to self or others or the inability to care for oneself, what, exactly, are these "additional symptoms" that might warrant the drastic step of commitment?

Hearing voices, perhaps? Acting more flamboyant than usual? Being quiet or secretive? Impulsivity or poor judgment?

Parental worries that, however we might sympathize, have no ground except in hindsight?

How about becoming fixated on religion, muttering prayers, giving away possessions, and conversing with birds? Do we really want a law that would threaten St. Francis?

Our commitment laws may not be perfect, but if we widen the net, we do so at our own peril.

Jenny Westberg

posted 3 years ago
view in context