This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own.

Politics & Government

State Hospital Safety Bill Headed for Legislative Hearing

A media release from the office of California Assemblymember Michael Allen, who has introduced legislation that, if passed, would allow staff at Napa State Hospital to force patients to take prescribed antipsychotic medications.

Sacramento – A bill authored by local (D – Santa Rosa) to address is headed for its first legislative review hearing next week.

Allen, a former psychiatric registered nurse who chairs the Assembly Select Committee on State Hospital Safety, is one of several lawmakers pushing for changes to enhance safety and security at the hospitals.

Allen’s AB 366, co-authored by Assemblymember Katcho Achadjian (R – San Luis Obispo) and Senator Sam Blakeslee (R – San Luis Obispo), is scheduled to be heard in the Assembly Public Safety Committee on May 3.

Find out what's happening in Napa Valleywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

AB 366 would make state hospitals safer for patients and staff by improving the current involuntary medication process to eliminate significant gaps in necessary treatments for patients deemed incompetent to stand trial (IST) and committed to state hospitals who have demonstrated that they are a danger to themselves or others. 

AB 366 requires a judge to determine if a defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication in the initial trial where the defendant is deemed incompetent to stand trial and consented to the administration of antipsychotic drugs.

Find out what's happening in Napa Valleywith free, real-time updates from Patch.

Under current law, a defendant may, at the advice of counsel, consent to the administration of antipsychotic drugs even if they are not competent to make that decision. Therefore, a state hospital may receive a defendant who has initially consented to antipsychotic medication but subsequently withdraws their consent. The hospital is then forced to obtain a new court order authorizing the medication, using the existing standard that the defendant lacks the capacity to make decisions regarding antipsychotic medication. 

“Rather than allowing a defendant to consent to a court order that they don’t have the capacity to consent to, the court should establish that capacity up front rather than having to immediately send the defendant back to court to get the order,” Allen said. “This would not eliminate any due process rights of the defendant and would save precious time and resources for our courts and state hospitals. In addition, it would ensure that defendants are not left untreated and allowed to mentally deteriorate while awaiting a new court order.”

AB 366 also creates an independent internal process to provide temporary involuntary medication if the defendant withdraws their consent to be medicated after being admitted to the hospital. The internal process for temporary involuntary medication would only be permissible if the hospital follows the procedures that protect independent decision and due process as provided for in various U.S. Supreme Court decisions, most notably, Washington v. Harper.

Allen represents California’s 7th Assembly District, comprised of Napa County as well as portions of Solano and Sonoma Counties.

We’ve removed the ability to reply as we work to make improvements. Learn more here

The views expressed in this post are the author's own. Want to post on Patch?