Talk:Laura's Law

This article is POV

How can this article pretend to present a neutral point of view? These are the links under See also:

• Chemical imbalance theory
• E. Fuller Torrey
• International Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology
• Involuntary treatment
• New Freedom Commission on Mental Health
• Protection & Advocacy, Inc.
• Sally Satel
• World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry

--Mattisse 22:54, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse, is your complaint that the article does not describe this law accurately/in an NPOV, or is your complaint that the legislature enacted something that some people disagree about? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

No, he's talking about how Wikipedia admin deletes every useful and honest link about a subject and leaves only the ones that give false, misleading, or skewed information about it. That's what Wikipedia does, it's fake. That's what he's talking about. Should be pretty easy for you to figure out, what with "POV" or whatever odd abbreviations or acronyms you use here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.159.55 (talk) 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

So the POV tag is just about the "See also" section that doesn't even exist at the moment?

Here's how it seems to me: Someone thinks this article -- about a fairly obscure, rarely applied law in a single California county -- desperately needs a half-dozen links to Wikipedia articles about psychologists and anti-psychiatry organizations. I can easily see the point behind linking to involuntary treatment, assuming that it's not linked higher up in the article. I can also see a link to the main anti-psychiatry article (which would be rather more pointful than links to a handful of random anti-psychiatry groups). But the rest? I frankly don't see how a link to Sally Satel's bio is going to help you learn anything about involuntary outpatient treatment in Los Angeles. Links in an article need to be about the specific topic at hand. This rambling list looks more like "everything I could think of on this general theme" than like a list of things you actually need to know to understand this California law.

I propose that a very short ==See also== section be reinstated, with four links to:

• 5150 (Involuntary psychiatric hold), California's law for psychiatric emergencies
• Involuntary treatment
• hospital-based involuntary commitment
• anti-psychiatry, a movement that opposes any form of involuntary psychiatric treatment

These links provide information which are directly related to psychiatric treatment in California. Will this work for you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Since it looks like the POV issues have been addressed, I have removed the POV tag. If you disagree, please provide more information about what statements or omissions in the article do not accurately and fairly explain this law. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Randall Hagar

Randall Hagar's lobbying tactics have been proven to be unethical and contrary to good legislation and psychiatry. The laws that he, and thereby the organizations that he represents, are now shown to be harmful to the state's populace. They serve no useful purpose.

Hagar should realize that not all of California's criminal registration laws are life-long. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.145.67 (talk) 06:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Efficacy POV

There are more sides to this than the "two notable studies".

• http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=301545
• http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/flr68&div=74&id=&page=
• http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jlawp11&div=11&id=&page=
• http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=85634
• http://www.psychosocial.com/IJPR_9/Act_Effectiveness.html
• http://journals.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=98971
• http://ps.psychiatryonline.org/article.aspx?articleid=85629&link_type=googlescholarrelated
• http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/geojpovlp10&div=10&id=&page=

207.207.28.154 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Further research shows that TAC and SMRI is funding Duke University which was involved with one of these studies.

• https://researchfunding.duke.edu/detail.asp?OppID=6953
• http://www.stanleyresearch.org/about/2005%20annual%20report.pdf

207.207.28.154 (talk) 01:50, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This is what the report said on why it doesn't disproportionately affect minority groups:

Racial Disparities in AOT: Are They

Real?

Since 1999 about 34% of AOT recipients

have been African Americans who make up

only 17% of the state's population, while

34% of the people on AOT have been

whites, who make up 61% of the

population.8

Thus, overall, African

Americans are more likely than whites to

receive AOT. However, candidates for AOT

are largely drawn from a population where

blacks are overrepresented: psychiatric

patients with multiple involuntary

hospitalizations in public facilities. The

answer to the question of whether AOT is

being applied fairly must take into account

all of the available data.9

To answer this question, we estimated and

compared rates of AOT for black and white

individuals using several alternative

denominators. These denominators can be

thought of as a series of concentric circles

encompassing relevant target populations,

from the broadest to the narrowest

definitions of who is “at risk” for receiving

AOT.10 We then conducted a multivariable,

longitudinal analysis of the association

between race and AOT at the county level

to see whether the relationship may be

accounted for by other underlying factors

that co-vary with race and AOT. Details

regarding methodology and statistical

analysis can be found in Appendix B.

Exhibit 1.8 displays the results graphically

for six counties and the state total.11 This

analysis shows that in the total population,

AOT affects African Americans 3 to 8 times

more frequently than whites – about 5 times

more frequently on average statewide.

'Here is the actual data: Exhibit 3.1. Six-county study sample recipient characteristics

	No current or recent AOT (n=134)	Current AOT (n=115)
	N %	N %
Violent behavior*	21 (15.7)	12 (10.4)
Suicidal thoughts or attempts	22 (16.4)	17 (14.8)
Homelessness	13 (9.7)	6 (5.2)
Involuntary commitment	54 (43.2)	46 (41.4)
Mental health pick-up/removal	25 (18.7)	16 (13.9)

• As defined by the MacArthur Community Violence Interview. See Appendix B for description of instruments.

Source: 6-county interviews.

Keep in mind suicidal thoughts and attempts are very different plus whop on this program wanting off will admit to having these thoughts if they know they will never get off while having them?

Which shows a way different picture than the data cited on this wikipedia page. I think it best to add the ACTUAL data.

Medication for psychiatric condition (PG 24 of the study) shows that medication use only went from 88% to 98% after extreme measures to enforce their use.

Plus this study is based entirely on government data provided by psychiatrists and a 6 county survey of people in the program. Imagine, after being forced to undergo medical drugging they have you fill out a survey - are you going to be confrontational? 207.207.28.154 (talk) 02:07, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The study says "87 percent said they were confident in their case manager's ability to help them" but doesn't say how this was reached. If this is after the state says they have the power to drug a person and take urine samples to make sure they are taking what they are told, then they ask a question like this - who is going to respond truthfully if they are trying to get out of the program?

Here is another report: http://www.omh.ny.gov/omhweb/kendra_web/finalreport/AOTFinal2005.pdf

Again, nothing on how they reached any of these "conclusions". 207.207.28.154 (talk) 02:28, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Also:

"There is a wide range of services that can be included in the treatment plan, such as case management, medication management, individual or group therapy, day programs, substance abuse testing and services, housing or housing support services, and urine or blood toxicology (to ensure adherence to medication)."

So this study shows that less people are "homelessness" but doesn't say that one reason might be because they qualify for shelter BECAUSE they are in the program. Plus no mention why this number isn't 0...

207.207.28.154 (talk) 02:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC) I created an account. It was a lot easier than I had thought. I was User:207.207.28.154. JasonAJensenUSA (talk) 02:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Laura's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050305084351/http://www.psychlaws.org:80/GeneralResources/article100.htm to http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article100.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Office of Mental Health and Duke studies

The studies by the New York State Office of Mental Health and Duke University Policy Research associates do not seem to meet WP:MEDRS, because they have not been published in peer-reviewed journals. The tables themselves seem to be WP:OR. Most significantly, they do not include confidence intervals. Is a 55% reduction in self-harm statistically significant? Or is it just a random fluctuation? There is no way to tell. I think the tables should be deleted. Since the studies are not WP:MEDRS, one could argue that they don't belong at all, but as a compromise I would accept using the conclusions in their abstract and executive summary. The conclusion of the NYS OMH report, BTW, is that their study does not evaluate Kendra's law, but instead it evaluates the effect of Kendra's law plus substantial supportive services. It may be the supportive services that cause the improvement, not Kendra's law. The Duke study had a similar, but more complicated, conclusion. --Nbauman (talk) 17:29, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Laura's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305084351/http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article100.htm to http://www.psychlaws.org/GeneralResources/article100.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20161202042110/http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml to http://www.un.org/disabilities/convention/conventionfull.shtml

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Laura's Law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727110152/http://namisanmateo.org/docs/Lauras-Law-AB1421.doc to http://namisanmateo.org/docs/Lauras-Law-AB1421.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080319032643/http://yubanet.com/in_memoriam.shtml to http://yubanet.com/in_memoriam.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051201005152/http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/calnet.shtml to http://www.mindfreedom.org/mindfreedom/calnet.shtml
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160110182514/http://lauras-law.org/ to http://www.lauras-law.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:06, 18 December 2017 (UTC)