Re: Re: Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules

[Guest guest]

There is such a thing as a "PAD" or psychiatric advance directive. In my opinion, you'd need an advocate who would stand your ground for you if push ever came to shove, though. With psych meds, there's always that "danger to ourselves or others" issue that can be used against us.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: Lynn <lrmflowers@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:43:11 -0400<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Re: Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive tosay we do not ever want to be given certain categories of drugs? For example, if we are older.. may go into a nursing home, can wesay in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, oranti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?ThanksLynnOn 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote: Exactly my thoughts.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT & TFrom: "jeremy9282"<jeremybryce1953@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Tuscon shootingsuspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patientsrefuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minorcrime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspectcan refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules> July 12, 2011 | 3:45 pm [increase text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>[decrease text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#comments>6><http://twitter.com/share?url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011\\>/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-can-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.\\>html & text=Tuscon%20shooting%20suspect%20can%20refuse%20anti-psychotic%20\\> drugs%2C%20court%20rules & via=lanow> 101>>[http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-300wi]> <http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-pi>> Tucson shooting suspect Lee Loughner has theconstitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while heappeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, afederal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeingLoughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9thCircuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free fromunwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order againstforcible medicaltreatment.>> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of acrime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled togreater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntarytreatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment planis decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 inSan Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prisonofficials sought to> medicate him against his will to render himcompetent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only underrestrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweighthe risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutionalrights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the governmentwas claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent himfrom being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was toget him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mentalhealth reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri thatsaid Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detentionat the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he betreated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participatein his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted anadministrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed theantipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings haveupheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate adangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will isallowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place theorder against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities hadmanaged to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury toanyone interacting> with him and that "the record shows that Loughneris not a danger to> himself.">> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e tookexception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous andthat less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staffwould be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights wereviolated when his> request to have his attorney present for theadministrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularlypuzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prisonauthorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Otheroutbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chairagainst the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing atprison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctorwho was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns tohalt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due processrights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior wereavailable, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motionto have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a SupremeCourt ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate avalid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filingthat prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minortranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "haveno direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion andrestraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effecton mental> disease.">> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillasfocused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner canget a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considerswhether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who wasnamed to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCChttps://distancetherapy.com/

[Guest guest]

There is such a thing as a "PAD" or psychiatric advance directive. In my opinion, you'd need an advocate who would stand your ground for you if push ever came to shove, though. With psych meds, there's always that "danger to ourselves or others" issue that can be used against us.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: Lynn <lrmflowers@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:43:11 -0400<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Re: Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive tosay we do not ever want to be given certain categories of drugs? For example, if we are older.. may go into a nursing home, can wesay in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, oranti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?ThanksLynnOn 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote: Exactly my thoughts.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT & TFrom: "jeremy9282"<jeremybryce1953@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Tuscon shootingsuspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patientsrefuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minorcrime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspectcan refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules> July 12, 2011 | 3:45 pm [increase text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>[decrease text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#comments>6><http://twitter.com/share?url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011\\>/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-can-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.\\>html & text=Tuscon%20shooting%20suspect%20can%20refuse%20anti-psychotic%20\\> drugs%2C%20court%20rules & via=lanow> 101>>[http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-300wi]> <http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-pi>> Tucson shooting suspect Lee Loughner has theconstitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while heappeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, afederal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeingLoughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9thCircuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free fromunwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order againstforcible medicaltreatment.>> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of acrime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled togreater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntarytreatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment planis decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 inSan Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prisonofficials sought to> medicate him against his will to render himcompetent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only underrestrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweighthe risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutionalrights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the governmentwas claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent himfrom being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was toget him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mentalhealth reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri thatsaid Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detentionat the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he betreated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participatein his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted anadministrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed theantipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings haveupheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate adangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will isallowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place theorder against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities hadmanaged to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury toanyone interacting> with him and that "the record shows that Loughneris not a danger to> himself.">> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e tookexception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous andthat less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staffwould be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights wereviolated when his> request to have his attorney present for theadministrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularlypuzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prisonauthorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Otheroutbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chairagainst the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing atprison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctorwho was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns tohalt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due processrights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior wereavailable, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motionto have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a SupremeCourt ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate avalid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filingthat prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minortranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "haveno direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion andrestraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effecton mental> disease.">> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillasfocused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner canget a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considerswhether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who wasnamed to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCChttps://distancetherapy.com/

[Guest guest]

There is such a thing as a "PAD" or psychiatric advance directive. In my opinion, you'd need an advocate who would stand your ground for you if push ever came to shove, though. With psych meds, there's always that "danger to ourselves or others" issue that can be used against us.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: Lynn <lrmflowers@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:43:11 -0400<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Re: Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive tosay we do not ever want to be given certain categories of drugs? For example, if we are older.. may go into a nursing home, can wesay in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, oranti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?ThanksLynnOn 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote: Exactly my thoughts.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT & TFrom: "jeremy9282"<jeremybryce1953@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Tuscon shootingsuspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patientsrefuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minorcrime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspectcan refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules> July 12, 2011 | 3:45 pm [increase text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>[decrease text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#comments>6><http://twitter.com/share?url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011\\>/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-can-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.\\>html & text=Tuscon%20shooting%20suspect%20can%20refuse%20anti-psychotic%20\\> drugs%2C%20court%20rules & via=lanow> 101>>[http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-300wi]> <http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-pi>> Tucson shooting suspect Lee Loughner has theconstitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while heappeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, afederal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeingLoughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9thCircuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free fromunwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order againstforcible medicaltreatment.>> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of acrime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled togreater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntarytreatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment planis decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 inSan Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prisonofficials sought to> medicate him against his will to render himcompetent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only underrestrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweighthe risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutionalrights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the governmentwas claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent himfrom being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was toget him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mentalhealth reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri thatsaid Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detentionat the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he betreated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participatein his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted anadministrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed theantipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings haveupheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate adangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will isallowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place theorder against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities hadmanaged to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury toanyone interacting> with him and that "the record shows that Loughneris not a danger to> himself.">> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e tookexception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous andthat less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staffwould be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights wereviolated when his> request to have his attorney present for theadministrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularlypuzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prisonauthorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Otheroutbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chairagainst the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing atprison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctorwho was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns tohalt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due processrights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior wereavailable, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motionto have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a SupremeCourt ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate avalid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filingthat prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minortranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "haveno direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion andrestraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effecton mental> disease.">> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillasfocused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner canget a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considerswhether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who wasnamed to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCChttps://distancetherapy.com/

[Guest guest]

There is such a thing as a "PAD" or psychiatric advance directive. In my opinion, you'd need an advocate who would stand your ground for you if push ever came to shove, though. With psych meds, there's always that "danger to ourselves or others" issue that can be used against us.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT&TFrom: Lynn <lrmflowers@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:43:11 -0400<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Re: Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive tosay we do not ever want to be given certain categories of drugs? For example, if we are older.. may go into a nursing home, can wesay in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, oranti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?ThanksLynnOn 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote: Exactly my thoughts.T.Sent via BlackBerry by AT & TFrom: "jeremy9282"<jeremybryce1953@...>Sender: SSRI medications Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000<SSRI medications >Reply SSRI medications Subject: Re: Tuscon shootingsuspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patientsrefuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minorcrime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspectcan refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychoticdrugs, court rules> July 12, 2011 | 3:45 pm [increase text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>[decrease text size]><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#>><http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-c\\>an-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.html#comments>6><http://twitter.com/share?url=http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011\\>/07/tuscon-shooter-loughner-can-refuse-anti-psychotic-drugs-court-rules.\\>html & text=Tuscon%20shooting%20suspect%20can%20refuse%20anti-psychotic%20\\> drugs%2C%20court%20rules & via=lanow> 101>>[http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-300wi]> <http://opinion.latimes.com/.a/6a00d8341c7de353ef0147e2124fda970b-pi>> Tucson shooting suspect Lee Loughner has theconstitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while heappeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, afederal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeingLoughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9thCircuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free fromunwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order againstforcible medicaltreatment.>> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of acrime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled togreater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntarytreatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment planis decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 inSan Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prisonofficials sought to> medicate him against his will to render himcompetent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only underrestrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweighthe risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutionalrights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the governmentwas claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent himfrom being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was toget him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mentalhealth reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri thatsaid Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detentionat the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he betreated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participatein his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted anadministrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed theantipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings haveupheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate adangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will isallowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place theorder against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities hadmanaged to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury toanyone interacting> with him and that "the record shows that Loughneris not a danger to> himself.">> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e tookexception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous andthat less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staffwould be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights wereviolated when his> request to have his attorney present for theadministrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularlypuzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prisonauthorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Otheroutbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chairagainst the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing atprison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctorwho was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns tohalt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due processrights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior wereavailable, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motionto have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a SupremeCourt ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate avalid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filingthat prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minortranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "haveno direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion andrestraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effecton mental> disease.">> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillasfocused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner canget a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considerswhether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who wasnamed to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCChttps://distancetherapy.com/