RIGHT ON :woohoo::woohoo:
she did have the power to commit him to a hospital against his will.
I bet that her records are in up to par, and she will make up everything to fit into some BS Un= accountability.
(there are enough links here that talk about her record keeping) __________________
Hey Songline, what is your legal basis for stating that this psychiatrist had the power to commit him to a hospital against his will?
In my experience, local police make the decision whether they will take a person to the hospital. If they do, once there, hospital psychs determine whether they will keep a person there, against there will.
The only power the treating psychiatrist has is to report direct threats of harm to the authorities. And if there are no such direct threats, then she can say nothing. So can you tell me your legal basis for concluding this psych had the power to do this?
Also, if she communicated her concerns to the rest of the BETA team, that means they were trying to set up a voluntary assessment. As I have repeated several times, that would be wholly unnecessary if a direct threat had been made. Instead, it sounds like this guy may have been exhibiting bizarre behavior that seriously concerned the psychiatrist but that did not rise to the level of reportable behavior.
Do you doubt what I am saying? Do you believe that a direct threat was made and communicated by Fenton to a whole team of mental health professionals and not one of them called the authorities? Or do you believe that a treating mental health professional has the unilateral authority to commit a patient against their will, in the absence of a direct threat of harm? If so, what is your legal basis for saying this?
Thanks in advance, friend. I'm seriously trying to understand!!
P.S. Glad to see someone else is up. I'm having serious insomnia!!!
