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

[Guest guest]

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 shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients refuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor crime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, 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 the constitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he appeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a federal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeing Loughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8 shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S. Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from unwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations, the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order against forcible medicaltreatment.>> " Because Loughner has not been convicted of a crime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate, " said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntary treatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the 22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan is decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in San Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison officials sought to> medicate him against his will to render him competent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only under restrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional rights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel, the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government was claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him from being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to get him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25 that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental health reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that said Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention at the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be treated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate in his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an administrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed the antipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a dangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will is allowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the order against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities had managed to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury to anyone interacting> with him and that " the record shows that Loughner is not a danger to> himself. " >> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took exception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and that less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff would be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights were violated when his> request to have his attorney present for the administrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly puzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prison authorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her, for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Other outbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair against the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at prison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor who was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to halt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due process rights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were available, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion to have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme Court ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a valid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filing that prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minor tranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they " have no direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and restraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effect on mental> disease. " >> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K. Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas focused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can get a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considers whether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns' decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was named to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>

[Guest guest]

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 shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients refuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor crime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, 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 the constitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he appeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a federal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeing Loughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8 shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S. Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from unwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations, the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order against forcible medicaltreatment.>> " Because Loughner has not been convicted of a crime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate, " said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntary treatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the 22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan is decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in San Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison officials sought to> medicate him against his will to render him competent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only under restrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional rights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel, the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government was claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him from being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to get him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25 that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental health reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that said Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention at the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be treated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate in his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an administrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed the antipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a dangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will is allowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the order against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities had managed to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury to anyone interacting> with him and that " the record shows that Loughner is not a danger to> himself. " >> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took exception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and that less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff would be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights were violated when his> request to have his attorney present for the administrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly puzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prison authorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her, for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Other outbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair against the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at prison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor who was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to halt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due process rights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were available, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion to have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme Court ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a valid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filing that prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minor tranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they " have no direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and restraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effect on mental> disease. " >> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K. Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas focused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can get a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considers whether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns' decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was named to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>

[Guest guest]

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 shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients refuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor crime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, 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 the constitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he appeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a federal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeing Loughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8 shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S. Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from unwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations, the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order against forcible medicaltreatment.>> " Because Loughner has not been convicted of a crime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate, " said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntary treatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the 22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan is decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in San Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison officials sought to> medicate him against his will to render him competent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only under restrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional rights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel, the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government was claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him from being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to get him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25 that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental health reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that said Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention at the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be treated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate in his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an administrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed the antipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a dangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will is allowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the order against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities had managed to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury to anyone interacting> with him and that " the record shows that Loughner is not a danger to> himself. " >> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took exception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and that less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff would be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights were violated when his> request to have his attorney present for the administrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly puzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prison authorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her, for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Other outbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair against the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at prison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor who was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to halt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due process rights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were available, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion to have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme Court ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a valid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filing that prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minor tranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they " have no direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and restraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effect on mental> disease. " >> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K. Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas focused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can get a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considers whether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns' decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was named to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>

[Guest guest]

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 shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients refuse thatvast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor crime, letalone capital murder ?>> Wow!>> T.> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuseanti-psychotic drugs, court rules>> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, 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 the constitutionalright> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he appeals the treatment> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a federal appealscourt> ruled Tuesday.>> The government has important interests in seeing Loughner healed ofhis> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8 shooting rampagethat> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S. Rep. le> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court ofAppeals> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from unwanted drugs that> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations, the court said in> extending its July 1 temporary order against forcible medicaltreatment.>> " Because Loughner has not been convicted of a crime, he is> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to greater> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate, " said the appeals> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.>> The panel said the injunction against involuntary treatment with> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the 22-year-old's> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan is decided. The> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in San Francisco.>> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison officials sought to> medicate him against his will to render him competent to stand trial,> something courts have allowed only under restrictive circumstances and> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh the risks of> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional rights. In its> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel, the defense teamheaded> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government was claiming that> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him from being a danger> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to get him in conditionto> stand trial.>> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25 that Loughner was> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental health reports from> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that said Loughnersuffers> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention at the Springfield,> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be treated with the> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate in his owndefense.> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an administrative hearing last> month at which it decided Loughner needed the antipsychotic drugs for> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have upheld prison> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a dangerous prisoner, but> also said that overriding the detainee's will is allowed only to> achieve security objectives.> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the order against forcible> medication noted that prison authorities had managed to keep Loughnerin> custody for more than six months without injury to anyone interacting> with him and that " the record shows that Loughner is not a danger to> himself. " >> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took exception with the> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and that less intrusive> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff would be ineffective.> e also argued that Loughner's rights were violated when his> request to have his attorney present for the administrative hearingwas> ignored.>> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly puzzling, sheadded,> because one of the incidents on which prison authorities based their> determination involved Loughner spitting on her, for which she saidshe> could have provided important context. Other outbursts mentioned inthe> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair against the back> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at prison staff and> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor who was trying to> evaluate him.>> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to halt the forced> medication, saying that it violated his due process rights and thatless> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were available, such as> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion to have the> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme Court ruling in 2003> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a valid reason for> overriding his objections to medication.>> The government told the appeals court in its filing that prisonmedical> professionals had determined that although minor tranquilizers couldbe> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they " have no direct> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and restraints are merely> temporary protective measures with no direct effect on mental> disease. " >> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K. Burke and> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas focused on the legal> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can get a court to stop> his forced medication, one of which considers whether the inmate has> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns' decision against> intervening.>> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was named to the court by> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and A. Paez,> both appointees of President Clinton.>

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive to

say 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 we

say in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, or

anti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?

Thanks

Lynn

On 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote:

 

Exactly my thoughts.

T.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

From: "jeremy9282"

<jeremybryce1953@...>

Sender: SSRI medications

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000

<SSRI medications >

Reply SSRI medications

Subject: Re: Tuscon shooting

suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

 

It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients

refuse that

vast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor

crime, let

alone capital murder ?

>

> Wow!

>

> T.

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect

can refuse

anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic

drugs, 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 the

constitutional

right

> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he

appeals the treatment

> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a

federal appeals

court

> ruled Tuesday.

>

> The government has important interests in seeing

Loughner healed of

his

> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8

shooting rampage

that

> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.

Rep. le

> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th

Circuit Court of

Appeals

> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from

unwanted drugs that

> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,

the court said in

> extending its July 1 temporary order against

forcible medical

treatment.

>

> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of a

crime, he is

> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to

greater

> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"

said the appeals

> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.

>

> The panel said the injunction against involuntary

treatment with

> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the

22-year-old's

> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan

is decided. The

> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in

San Francisco.

>

> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison

officials sought to

> medicate him against his will to render him

competent to stand trial,

> something courts have allowed only under

restrictive circumstances and

> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh

the risks of

> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional

rights. In its

> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,

the defense team

headed

> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government

was claiming that

> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him

from being a danger

> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to

get him in condition

to

> stand trial.

>

> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25

that Loughner was

> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental

health reports from

> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that

said Loughner

suffers

> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention

at the Springfield,

> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be

treated with the

> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate

in his own

defense.

> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an

administrative hearing last

> month at which it decided Loughner needed the

antipsychotic drugs for

> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have

upheld prison

> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a

dangerous prisoner, but

> also said that overriding the detainee's will is

allowed only to

> achieve security objectives.

> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the

order against forcible

> medication noted that prison authorities had

managed to keep Loughner

in

> custody for more than six months without injury to

anyone interacting

> with him and that "the record shows that Loughner

is not a danger to

> himself."

>

> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took

exception with the

> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and

that less intrusive

> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff

would be ineffective.

> e also argued that Loughner's rights were

violated when his

> request to have his attorney present for the

administrative hearing

was

> ignored.

>

> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly

puzzling, she

added,

> because one of the incidents on which prison

authorities based their

> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,

for which she said

she

> could have provided important context. Other

outbursts mentioned in

the

> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair

against the back

> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at

prison staff and

> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor

who was trying to

> evaluate him.

>

> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to

halt the forced

> medication, saying that it violated his due process

rights and that

less

> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were

available, such as

> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion

to have the

> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme

Court ruling in 2003

> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a

valid reason for

> overriding his objections to medication.

>

> The government told the appeals court in its filing

that prison

medical

> professionals had determined that although minor

tranquilizers could

be

> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "have

no direct

> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and

restraints are merely

> temporary protective measures with no direct effect

on mental

> disease."

>

> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.

Burke and

> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas

focused on the legal

> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can

get a court to stop

> his forced medication, one of which considers

whether the inmate has

> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'

decision against

> intervening.

>

> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was

named to the court by

> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and

A. Paez,

> both appointees of President Clinton.

>

-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCC

https://distancetherapy.com/

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive to

say 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 we

say in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, or

anti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?

Thanks

Lynn

On 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote:

 

Exactly my thoughts.

T.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

From: "jeremy9282"

<jeremybryce1953@...>

Sender: SSRI medications

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000

<SSRI medications >

Reply SSRI medications

Subject: Re: Tuscon shooting

suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

 

It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients

refuse that

vast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor

crime, let

alone capital murder ?

>

> Wow!

>

> T.

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect

can refuse

anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic

drugs, 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 the

constitutional

right

> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he

appeals the treatment

> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a

federal appeals

court

> ruled Tuesday.

>

> The government has important interests in seeing

Loughner healed of

his

> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8

shooting rampage

that

> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.

Rep. le

> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th

Circuit Court of

Appeals

> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from

unwanted drugs that

> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,

the court said in

> extending its July 1 temporary order against

forcible medical

treatment.

>

> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of a

crime, he is

> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to

greater

> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"

said the appeals

> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.

>

> The panel said the injunction against involuntary

treatment with

> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the

22-year-old's

> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan

is decided. The

> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in

San Francisco.

>

> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison

officials sought to

> medicate him against his will to render him

competent to stand trial,

> something courts have allowed only under

restrictive circumstances and

> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh

the risks of

> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional

rights. In its

> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,

the defense team

headed

> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government

was claiming that

> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him

from being a danger

> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to

get him in condition

to

> stand trial.

>

> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25

that Loughner was

> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental

health reports from

> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that

said Loughner

suffers

> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention

at the Springfield,

> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be

treated with the

> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate

in his own

defense.

> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an

administrative hearing last

> month at which it decided Loughner needed the

antipsychotic drugs for

> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have

upheld prison

> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a

dangerous prisoner, but

> also said that overriding the detainee's will is

allowed only to

> achieve security objectives.

> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the

order against forcible

> medication noted that prison authorities had

managed to keep Loughner

in

> custody for more than six months without injury to

anyone interacting

> with him and that "the record shows that Loughner

is not a danger to

> himself."

>

> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took

exception with the

> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and

that less intrusive

> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff

would be ineffective.

> e also argued that Loughner's rights were

violated when his

> request to have his attorney present for the

administrative hearing

was

> ignored.

>

> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly

puzzling, she

added,

> because one of the incidents on which prison

authorities based their

> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,

for which she said

she

> could have provided important context. Other

outbursts mentioned in

the

> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair

against the back

> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at

prison staff and

> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor

who was trying to

> evaluate him.

>

> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to

halt the forced

> medication, saying that it violated his due process

rights and that

less

> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were

available, such as

> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion

to have the

> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme

Court ruling in 2003

> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a

valid reason for

> overriding his objections to medication.

>

> The government told the appeals court in its filing

that prison

medical

> professionals had determined that although minor

tranquilizers could

be

> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "have

no direct

> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and

restraints are merely

> temporary protective measures with no direct effect

on mental

> disease."

>

> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.

Burke and

> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas

focused on the legal

> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can

get a court to stop

> his forced medication, one of which considers

whether the inmate has

> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'

decision against

> intervening.

>

> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was

named to the court by

> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and

A. Paez,

> both appointees of President Clinton.

>

-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCC

https://distancetherapy.com/

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive to

say 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 we

say in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, or

anti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?

Thanks

Lynn

On 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote:

 

Exactly my thoughts.

T.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

From: "jeremy9282"

<jeremybryce1953@...>

Sender: SSRI medications

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000

<SSRI medications >

Reply SSRI medications

Subject: Re: Tuscon shooting

suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

 

It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients

refuse that

vast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor

crime, let

alone capital murder ?

>

> Wow!

>

> T.

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect

can refuse

anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic

drugs, 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 the

constitutional

right

> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he

appeals the treatment

> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a

federal appeals

court

> ruled Tuesday.

>

> The government has important interests in seeing

Loughner healed of

his

> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8

shooting rampage

that

> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.

Rep. le

> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th

Circuit Court of

Appeals

> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from

unwanted drugs that

> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,

the court said in

> extending its July 1 temporary order against

forcible medical

treatment.

>

> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of a

crime, he is

> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to

greater

> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"

said the appeals

> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.

>

> The panel said the injunction against involuntary

treatment with

> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the

22-year-old's

> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan

is decided. The

> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in

San Francisco.

>

> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison

officials sought to

> medicate him against his will to render him

competent to stand trial,

> something courts have allowed only under

restrictive circumstances and

> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh

the risks of

> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional

rights. In its

> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,

the defense team

headed

> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government

was claiming that

> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him

from being a danger

> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to

get him in condition

to

> stand trial.

>

> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25

that Loughner was

> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental

health reports from

> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that

said Loughner

suffers

> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention

at the Springfield,

> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be

treated with the

> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate

in his own

defense.

> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an

administrative hearing last

> month at which it decided Loughner needed the

antipsychotic drugs for

> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have

upheld prison

> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a

dangerous prisoner, but

> also said that overriding the detainee's will is

allowed only to

> achieve security objectives.

> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the

order against forcible

> medication noted that prison authorities had

managed to keep Loughner

in

> custody for more than six months without injury to

anyone interacting

> with him and that "the record shows that Loughner

is not a danger to

> himself."

>

> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took

exception with the

> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and

that less intrusive

> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff

would be ineffective.

> e also argued that Loughner's rights were

violated when his

> request to have his attorney present for the

administrative hearing

was

> ignored.

>

> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly

puzzling, she

added,

> because one of the incidents on which prison

authorities based their

> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,

for which she said

she

> could have provided important context. Other

outbursts mentioned in

the

> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair

against the back

> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at

prison staff and

> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor

who was trying to

> evaluate him.

>

> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to

halt the forced

> medication, saying that it violated his due process

rights and that

less

> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were

available, such as

> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion

to have the

> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme

Court ruling in 2003

> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a

valid reason for

> overriding his objections to medication.

>

> The government told the appeals court in its filing

that prison

medical

> professionals had determined that although minor

tranquilizers could

be

> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "have

no direct

> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and

restraints are merely

> temporary protective measures with no direct effect

on mental

> disease."

>

> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.

Burke and

> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas

focused on the legal

> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can

get a court to stop

> his forced medication, one of which considers

whether the inmate has

> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'

decision against

> intervening.

>

> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was

named to the court by

> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and

A. Paez,

> both appointees of President Clinton.

>

-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCC

https://distancetherapy.com/

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know if we can use a Living Will or advance directive to

say 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 we

say in advance that we do not want benzos, SSRIs, or

anti-psychotics? What are the chances our wishes would be followed?

Thanks

Lynn

On 8/4/2011 11:55 AM, nandtbearden@... wrote:

 

Exactly my thoughts.

T.

Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

From: "jeremy9282"

<jeremybryce1953@...>

Sender: SSRI medications

Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2011 15:54:34 -0000

<SSRI medications >

Reply SSRI medications

Subject: Re: Tuscon shooting

suspect can refuse anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

 

It's very interesting so why can't hospatalised patients

refuse that

vast majority of whom had not ever carried out any minor

crime, let

alone capital murder ?

>

> Wow!

>

> T.

> Sent via BlackBerry by AT & T

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect

can refuse

anti-psychotic drugs, court rules

>

> Tuscon shooting suspect can refuse anti-psychotic

drugs, 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 the

constitutional

right

> to refuse anti-psychotic medication while he

appeals the treatment

> prescribed by prison mental health authorities, a

federal appeals

court

> ruled Tuesday.

>

> The government has important interests in seeing

Loughner healed of

his

> schizophrenia and brought to trial for the Jan. 8

shooting rampage

that

> killed six and injured 13 others, including U.S.

Rep. le

> Giffords, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th

Circuit Court of

Appeals

> noted. But Loughner's right to be free from

unwanted drugs that

> could harm or kill him trumps those considerations,

the court said in

> extending its July 1 temporary order against

forcible medical

treatment.

>

> "Because Loughner has not been convicted of a

crime, he is

> presumptively innocent and is therefore entitled to

greater

> constitutional rights than a convicted inmate,"

said the appeals

> panel headed by Chief Judge Kozinski.

>

> The panel said the injunction against involuntary

treatment with

> psychotropic drugs would remain in force until the

22-year-old's

> appeal of the prison medical team's treatment plan

is decided. The

> next hearing in that appeal was set for Aug. 29 in

San Francisco.

>

> Loughner's attorneys had argued that prison

officials sought to

> medicate him against his will to render him

competent to stand trial,

> something courts have allowed only under

restrictive circumstances and

> when the medical benefits of the treatment outweigh

the risks of

> violating a pretrial prisoner's constitutional

rights. In its

> written and oral arguments to the appeals panel,

the defense team

headed

> by San Diego lawyer Judy e said the government

was claiming that

> Loughner needed antipsychotic drugs to prevent him

from being a danger

> to himself or others when in fact the aim was to

get him in condition

to

> stand trial.

>

> U.S. District Judge Larry A. Burns ruled on May 25

that Loughner was

> incompetent to stand trial after reviewing mental

health reports from

> the federal prison medical center in Missouri that

said Loughner

suffers

> from schizophrenia. Loughner has been in detention

at the Springfield,

> Mo., mental hospital since Burns' order that he be

treated with the

> aim of rendering him able to eventually participate

in his own

defense.

> The Federal Bureau of Prisons conducted an

administrative hearing last

> month at which it decided Loughner needed the

antipsychotic drugs for

> safety reasons. U.S. Supreme Court rulings have

upheld prison

> authorities' rights to forcibly medicate a

dangerous prisoner, but

> also said that overriding the detainee's will is

allowed only to

> achieve security objectives.

> The 9th Circuit decision to leave in place the

order against forcible

> medication noted that prison authorities had

managed to keep Loughner

in

> custody for more than six months without injury to

anyone interacting

> with him and that "the record shows that Loughner

is not a danger to

> himself."

>

> In her brief to the 9th Circuit panel, e took

exception with the

> prison's claims that Loughner was dangerous and

that less intrusive

> means of mitigating the dangers to prison staff

would be ineffective.

> e also argued that Loughner's rights were

violated when his

> request to have his attorney present for the

administrative hearing

was

> ignored.

>

> Her exclusion from the proceeding was particularly

puzzling, she

added,

> because one of the incidents on which prison

authorities based their

> determination involved Loughner spitting on her,

for which she said

she

> could have provided important context. Other

outbursts mentioned in

the

> prison's decision include Loughner throwing a chair

against the back

> wall of his cell on several occasions, swearing at

prison staff and

> tossing a sodden roll of toilet paper at a doctor

who was trying to

> evaluate him.

>

> Loughner's attorneys on June 24 petitioned Burns to

halt the forced

> medication, saying that it violated his due process

rights and that

less

> intrusive means of controlling his behavior were

available, such as

> restraints and isolation. Burns denied the motion

to have the

> involuntary medication stopped, citing a Supreme

Court ruling in 2003

> that deemed the need to control a violent inmate a

valid reason for

> overriding his objections to medication.

>

> The government told the appeals court in its filing

that prison

medical

> professionals had determined that although minor

tranquilizers could

be

> useful in reducing Loughner's agitation, they "have

no direct

> effect on the mental disease, and seclusion and

restraints are merely

> temporary protective measures with no direct effect

on mental

> disease."

>

> The brief filed by Arizona's U.S. Atty. Dennis K.

Burke and

> Assistant U.S. Atty. M. Cabanillas

focused on the legal

> procedural points that govern when a prisoner can

get a court to stop

> his forced medication, one of which considers

whether the inmate has

> good prospects of winning on his appeal of Burns'

decision against

> intervening.

>

> The 9th Circuit panel included Kozinski, who was

named to the court by

> President Reagan, and Judges Kim McLane Wardlaw and

A. Paez,

> both appointees of President Clinton.

>

-- Lynn , LMHC, LRC, DCC

https://distancetherapy.com/