Privacy rights of street people

Ms. Woods you are right. This is totally not about making assumptions about poverty. Some people can work themselves out of extraordinary positions. Some cannot. The question her is how far, as a society should our compassion extend? Is this purely about survival of the fittest, or are we willing to accept that some people are not able to simply get a job, suck it up, and work through things without intervention on behalf of the community?

I agree that some are incapable of functioning in mainstream life since the closing of mental health facilities.

But also one thing rarely mentioned is how families are kept out of the process when a loved one is causing self harm. First, it is impossible to get information about a child or adult on the streets due to privacy laws. And if a family member tries to intervene they can be charged with kidnapping or abuse if they touch their loved one to take them home to a safe place. The same system that upholds the Charter of Rights also keeps key people apart.

I think families should be allowed to take guardianship of someone in dire straits without fear of breaking a serious and scary law. Interventions can work if they are permitted.

I think families should be allowed to take guardianship of someone in dire straits without fear of breaking a serious and scary law. Interventions can work if they are permitted.

Hell no. Half the time it is the family that is the problem.
It has to be voluntary or better that the health care system does it.

Hell no. Half the time it is the family that is the problem.
It has to be voluntary or better that the health care system does it.

What health care system? The same one that closed down all the prov facilities and threw mentally ill to fend for themselve on the streets? Who have no detox beds? Who can only keep a person at EMI for 24 hours before throwing them out?

But besides that - I think it is alarmist to automatically blame the family of origin. I know many many families who suffer long and hard - and I would be among their numbers if it were happening to my child. Sometimes the blame lies squarly with predatory drug dealers and bad timing and depression.

I am convinced that the part where an addict "needs to volunteer" for help may be one of the main reasons we have senseless death on our streets. How is it better to leave them laying in a doorway caring about nothing else except finding another hit? I think it would remove pressure from the overtaxed social services, police, courts and health care system if temporary guardianship rights were available for those families ("the other half") who have the means and the heart to provide care for an addict who is slowly killing themselves.

I agree w/ Ms. Woods that Cdn laws in this area are frightening. CBC Radio ran an excellent series on mental health a while back (Shelagh R, "sounds like Canada," iirc), which was the first I heard of these laws. As a mother, I was appalled, just appalled. The CBC program specifically mentioned one young university student - under 21 - whose university wasn't permitted under the privacy laws to tell her parents that she was trying to kill herself (had several attempts under her belt already), was being treated for depression - and wasn't getting better. The girl eventually succeeded. The parents knew nothing until she was dead.

As some of you know, I'm American (in addition to having Canadian citizenship). I was incredulous that something like this could happen to a family - that parents were actively prevented from reaching out to their child to help her. Appalling, just appalling. (PS: incredulous that this - keeping the parents out of the picture deliberately - was legal, and that it was protected by the law, encouraged by the law, enabled by the law. My thought was, 'what's wrong with Canada? Are we expected to be automatons, run according to checklists, be accountable to bureaucrats, but not our own flesh and blood?')

I agree w/ Ms. Woods that Cdn laws in this area are frightening. CBC Radio ran an excellent series on mental health a while back (Shelagh R, "sounds like Canada," iirc), which was the first I heard of these laws. As a mother, I was appalled, just appalled. The CBC program specifically mentioned one young university student - under 21 - whose university wasn't permitted under the privacy laws to tell her parents that she was trying to kill herself (had several attempts under her belt already), was being treated for depression - and wasn't getting better. The girl eventually succeeded. The parents knew nothing until she was dead.

As some of you know, I'm American (in addition to having Canadian citizenship). I was incredulous that something like this could happen to a family - that parents were actively prevented from reaching out to their child to help her. Appalling, just appalling. (PS: incredulous that this - keeping the parents out of the picture deliberately - was legal, and that it was protected by the law, encouraged by the law, enabled by the law. My thought was, 'what's wrong with Canada? Are we expected to be automatons, run according to checklists, be accountable to bureaucrats, but not our own flesh and blood?')

------ uhmmm , sometimes it's the family that causes the depression --------

and sometimes , the families responce ( more religion for example ) that serves to futher Isolate the depressed ie: they don't bother to reach-out ...!

Welcome to Canada , it's full of contradiction and knee jerk reactionaries ...

sadly , we don't study the notes they leave behind ...
and we don't publish the number's of people/children who take their own lives ...!


--------- Take the Homeless people for example -------

We are more willing to critize people for their failings ,
than we are willing to help out , and find a reasonable solution.

we feed children images like Paris-Hilton , Briton-Spear's , Madona etc

what do you think happen's ,
when they realize they will NEVER be that lucky ...?


-------- kid's that don't turn to parents for help ...?

maybe the Parents need their head's examined


too many times EXPECTATIONS for the child , ( by the parents )
is meet with DISAPOINTMENT fallowed by suggestions of punishment ...!


;{-

.
.
.
just like the way we treat the homeless people

Well your proposition to hand people over to their parents will work very well I am sure for people who come from good caring families. But from what I know of the streets there are a lot of people fleeing families where incest, & abuse - emotional or physical, are a reality. The law protects those people from being handed back to their abusers during times of vulnerability. And so it should.

You may not believe these families exist but I assure you, they do. I can tell you stories about teenagers kept locked up for weeks at a time, forced to have sex with fathers, step-fathers, or in one case even men their mothers brought over. I can tell you of a teenager returned to her loving and concerned mother by the system, (happy that they brought this poor misguided girl home) - in that case the mother trapped her in a room and set the door on fire as punishment for running away.

You get out of a situation like that, damn straights you want to kill yourself. No, you aren't socialized properly. But at least you've taken that first big step and left the toxic environment. Your chances still might not be good but if you survive long enough you might eventually re-socialize, and begin to heal. Unless of course big brother finds you too emotionally damaged to be on your own - and hands you back to what you fled, removing your rights as an adult.

Yes, our mental health services need a HUGE overhaul. And I totally agree - friends and family who are willing to care for people who are addicted or mentally ill should be supported by the state, and given all the resources they need to succeed. But if the state takes away autonomy from an adult, then it must keep that responsibility for themselves, not hand it over to whatever family member convinces them that they know best, not without consent.

People from that loving home are more likely to consent. The people who don't consent, they may have a good reason. Gambling that they don't is a contravention of the most basic human rights.

Appalling, just appalling. (PS: incredulous that this - keeping the parents out of the picture deliberately - was legal, and that it was protected by the law, encouraged by the law, enabled by the law.

I wonder if anyone has ever posed a challenge to that law? Your comments about us being held accountable to bureaucrats, but not our own flesh and blood, is reflected in the oft used phrase 'the victim industry'. Anyway, I would love to see a lawyer take that on pro-bono.

What health care system? The same one that closed down all the prov facilities and threw mentally ill to fend for themselve on the streets? Who have no detox beds? Who can only keep a person at EMI for 24 hours before throwing them out?

( snip )

if temporary guardianship rights were available for those families ("the other half") who have the means and the heart to provide care for an addict who is slowly killing themselves.

-------- Maybe you got part of a solution there -----------

Maybe U-Vic's Center for Addiction ,

can teach "willing-families" how to deal with addiction & rehab ,
so some of the "recovery" , can be done at home...!

But right now ...????????


I stand by my comment saying that FAMILY'S aren't really capable of dealing with ,
and some-times , are the reason that children take their own lives

ted...


simply , i'd like to see more sucess
(home study with a certificate and daily inspections...? )

ie: something NOT being offered @ the U-Vic Center for Addiction .. yet


.

But from what I know of the streets there are a lot of people fleeing families where incest, & abuse - emotional or physical, are a reality.

One of the main symptoms of addiction, besides lying and stealing to feed the monster, is blame and manipulation. I think we've lost sight of the reality of hard drugs if we assume the addict is always telling "the truth of the matter" and don't at least TRY to involve the family with legal rights to intervene. I'm sure the same agencies who are supposed to provide all of lifes basic needs, have the ability to perform case by case evaluations.

Luckily the law sees more of the cases I'm talking about than you do. Often after the fact. So there is no way that appeal would win.

A mother or father may indeed desire to take over her child's life, to remove their ability to choose, and to control every part of that child's existence will into adulthood, and that may be natural. But that doesn't mean it is healthy, or that it should be permitted.

You dismiss family dysfunction as only pertaining to some isolated cases - cases which apparently you'd be fine with writing off as collateral damage. My life experience has shown me that these cases are not as rare as you think. Remember, most mental illnesses are genetic, of those that are not, childhood trauma most often plays a role. In many cases you'd be advocating placing a diagnosed mentally ill adult into the legal care of an undiagnosed mentally ill adult - which is as crazy as it sounds.

Returning victims to their abusers is not something we should ever contemplate. Families are not benevolent by default.

A truly loving, caring and competent parent has the child's entire life to nurture a relationship with their offspring. By the time that the child is an adult, if mom and dad aren't seen as a place of refuge, and an institution is preferable, then maybe there is a good reason. Interventions work, you say. Well, if they work so well why do adults who have been kidnapped and locked up and subjected to whatever passes for intervention in that family, come out of it wanting to press charges? Shouldn't they be grateful?

Again, it is not our place to gamble on the chance that the person resisting placement with family is deluded or lying, and that family dysfunction wasn't part of the problem. And no, the placement agents don't have the ability in the short window of time that they see the addict's case to see through every family's story. If you are sure they are able to tell the difference, then you are gravely mistaken.

Remember, the system we have still allows parents to take guardianship WITH consent. And the consent can be given during a moment of clarity. If family is better than an institution, there is that choice.

You dismiss family dysfunction as only pertaining to some isolated cases - cases which apparently you'd be fine with writing off as collateral damage.

I am never fine with writing off anything or anybody. Its hard work to care - but I do - which is why I am suggesting some options and illuminmating that someone screwed up on chemical drugs is already vulnerable and making bad choices.

Frankly I would risk being charged with kidnapping to rescue my child from the jaws of serious drugs. I know many teenagers who fell into a dangerous lifestyle - partying with no direction for the future - and a "cool" dealer who is happy to supply free substances for a window of time - and then its predator city.

I am convinced intervention works. Therapy works. And families have a bigger role to play. Better then jail or death.

Frankly I would risk being charged with kidnapping to rescue my child from the jaws of serious drugs.

Ditto. I wouldn't even think about it for a moment.

Hell no. Half the time it is the family that is the problem.

What about the other half of the time?

I agree with Ms. Woods. The state keeps a parent from knowing anything their adult child behaviour/health etc. shouting privacy concerns.

Makes it pretty hard to provide any sort of assitance and makes the all knowing state responsible when things go off the rails, costing the taxpayer dollars for very meagre help.

Conversly for those of you with elderly parents you will find the medical/mental health system will provide you with any information you want and encourage you to find solutions for their care. I guess old people don't want privacy.

OK then, if you all advocate stripping adults of their rights and assigning those rights to the person's parents, then let's talk about the logistics.

What about that half that do come from a dysfunctional, and even abusive family? How do you protect them, if you aren't writing them off? Are social workers supposed to be able in a few interviews to determine that the maladjusted person is telling the truth and the family member who wants legal guardianship is not only well meaning, but also competent to deal with a troubled, potentially mentally-ill or addicted charge?

If it all goes terribly wrong, does the person who was kidnapped and re-victimized with state help get to sue the state?

At what point does intervention become viable? Do the parents get to say when? What about families that believe all drug use is equally bad. Do they get to strip their adult child of their rights for use of pot? Frequent partying? What evidence should they have to produce in order to have the other person's autonomy suspended?

How far does the right to know and intervene go? And what does the research show about the importance of doctor-patient confidentiality, and it's relationship to degree to which people will confide in their doctors.

Is there an age this wears off? Should we have to worry at 25 that our parents might take power of attorney over us? 35? 65?

If your parent asked their doctor not to tell you anything about their medical care, then the doctor would not. The doctor talks to you because your parent consented to him sharing. Consent is the key.

As the law stands now, if you stage an intervention, and it works, you won't get sued because your kid will be grateful. If you stage an intervention using kidnapping or violence, and it simply serves as a bungled attempt that causes the suffering family member even more grief, betrayal, and dis-empowerment, then it is good that the injured individual has the right to press charges.

Are social workers supposed to be able in a few interviews to determine that the maladjusted person is telling the truth and the family member who wants legal guardianship is not only well meaning, but also competent to deal with a troubled, potentially mentally-ill or addicted charge? If it all goes terribly wrong, does the person who was kidnapped and re-victimized with state help get to sue the state?.

All some people are saying is that we live in strange times indeed when a concerned family must watch helplessly while a loved one is on the streets.

You expect strangers in the broad community - and mere employees of the government to care - but a family with a broken heart are suspects? Your rationale sounds more like a script treatment for a sequel to the Texas Chainsaw Massacre.

No, you aren't understanding me.

First, I've been the person behind the intervention, enough times I have lost count. I've been the person keeping watch, bringing the fluids, listening to the ranting, raving, the breakdown, the regrets. I've done it for people I didn't love too. I'm not talking out my ass here.

So yes, interventions can work. However, the way they work is that you keep your door open, you are ready and willing to take the opportunity as soon as the addict reaches for it. And in preparation you build a trust relationship with the addict, which will ultimately lead to them knocking on YOUR door. You make the offer over and over, you draw you boundaries and you keep to them firmly, so the addict knows you stand on the side of sobriety.
It is a LOT more work then just getting a judge to sign over custody and kidnapping your loved one.

And it HAS to be voluntary - if not at that moment, at least in a moment of clarity - and yes, I've "imprisoned" a person before... but they came to me because they knew once they entered that room there was no leaving until they were through it. There has to be consent. If the addict has been disruptive enough in society that the judge has taken away his or her autonomy, it would be great if they could be given the choice of custody of family. If an addict would prefer to go into institutional care, or perhaps the care of a friend, rather than be ministered to by family, that option needs to be available. Family is often not the best place for that recovery.

When mental illness complicates the matter, then you need a trained professional involved, and again, trust becomes one of the essential ingredients. Think of it this way - if you had a physical illness, would you rather your kind loving family performs the surgery? Or would you rather go to a hospital where they are experts in exactly your problem? Now, lets add the stigma of addiction and mental illness to that... how about comparing it to herpes. Upon discovering you might have genital warts - would you go to your mom and ask her to check you out? Or would you want the anonymity of a professional?

That's not to say family doesn't have a role. Providing unconditional love, support, a place to stay after the worst is over, which is when the work begins, paying the bills, basically being open to providing whatever is needed.... all of these are things family (and friends) can and should do. And that alone is a lot of work. It is also during this time that you can offer yourself as a safety net, and ask the person to sign over power of attorney to you if they lose it again - especially in the case of mental illness, but also in the case of addiction - since in most situations, sadly, it takes a few times before the addiction is shaken.

If you do that, you had better be damn sure you know what you are doing. Cause if you screw it up, you've lowered the chances your loved one will ever be free of their demons. A bad intervention can be damaging. To go back to my comparison... when mom tries to cure your herpes with the bible and a hot knife, the cure can be as bad as the disease. This is the time to talk to the nurses, or the doctor and be brought in on the care regime, and educated on what to expect and how to respond.

You guys are talking like family is shut out of this whole process. But that is simply not true. Family and friends can take on a huge part in this play, huge enough to consume your lives if you let it. A recovering addict or someone struggling with a mental illness can be a black hole into which you give your all - and that is WITH the state intervening. Having walked down this road over and over, I can tell you that much with certainty. The only reason family would be shut out is if the patient has made it clear to their doctors or case workers that they do not want mom and dad involved. In that case, sorry mom and dad, but somewhere you lost that trust, and the law cannot give that back to you through custody. Blaming the addiction is a cop out. You can gain the trust of an addict. Maybe you lost the trust through the most well meaning intentions... but without it, you can't be a good caretaker, no matter how much love is in your hearts.

admin

Correction - even after I posted I am still on page 15. Is it just the page counter that is in error?

OK then, if you all advocate stripping adults of their rights and assigning those rights to the person's parents, then let's talk about the logistics.

If it all goes terribly wrong, does the person who was kidnapped and re-victimized with state help get to sue the state?


Is there an age this wears off? Should we have to worry at 25 that our parents might take power of attorney over us? 35? 65?

If your parent asked their doctor not to tell you anything about their medical care, then the doctor would not. The doctor talks to you because your parent consented to him sharing. Consent is the key.

Whoaaaa.

You have a habit of taking a simple statement and blowing it up into something completely different than what was intended.

I never advocated "stripping adults of their rights", all I wanted was the knowledge that something was wrong with my child. I could choose to help or not, based on the child's response to any offer of help I made.

I never advocated kidnapping anyone - this seems to be a product of your fertile mind, not mine.

Is there an age where this wears off - no I don't think so, I would always be willing to help my child if I was able and he/she were desirous of my help. Again I never said anything about power of attorney - that's a big leap from anything I said.

Re parents consenting to share their medical concerns through their doctor - no consent was given. The Doctor took it upon himself to share the information and I don't think any harm was done. At some point you, the child, are going to have to make decisions for your parent. This may be done in a formal consent or just fall into place naturally.

All my posts were written with the young homeless addict in mind.

Those afflicted with mental health issues should be in prov facilities and so obstensibly the family would have info about them readily avail.

Since detox bed which are in such short supply, I am just advocating that a family should be brought in more to work alongside the professionals. Not be excluded by a "one size fits all" privacy law.

Maybe you lost the trust (of the addict) through the most well meaning intentions... but without it, you can't be a good caretaker, no matter how much love is in your hearts.[/

Broken trust can be repaired through family therapy. Sometimes the grief/guilt associated with losing a child to the streets can do wonders for everyone's healing. An addict takes a lot of people down with them - so eveyone has a stake in getting people off drugs.

To go back to my comparison... when mom tries to cure your herpes with the bible and a hot knife, the cure can be as bad as the disease.

Cara, I do enjoy your spirited anti-establishment comments - but there are more addicts heating chemicals in spoons and injecting them into their veins then there are non-drug users curing people with hot knives. And comparing herpes to crack or heroin is a stretch. People with herpes do not kill themselves doing drugs - or kill others robbing for drugs.

I know we see things differently - but I do appreciate and try to understand your views.

First LJ, throughout every post I have used the term adult. So if anyone is still arguing with me, as some here have been - then they are arguing against my defense of adult autonomy. With teenagers, they are still in custody of their parents, unless that custody has been removed - and there are very specific ways that can happen. In most cases, there is no need to give parents custody. Therefore, the point is moot.

To Susan, family members can already be part of the solution. In most cases, when there is a good bond between family, they are. In those cases where family dysfunction is part of the root of the issue, the family should not automatically be included in the detox. Particularly, the family should not be given the right to kidnap, imprison, or beat the addiction out of the addict. This is not a dis-establishmentarian view. In fact I am supporting the establishment's regulations around this issue, and advocating including trained professionals (who you frame as uncaring gov workers) in the process.

Yes, broken trust is important to heal. But that is a journey on its own. Broken trust is rarely healed through well meaning but dramatic kidnapping scenarios.

Susan, my comparison to herpes was meant to illustrate the shame and humiliation of addiction and mental health issues. My point being that untrained family members are not necessarily the best people to treat either case - both because of the humiliation factor, and the lack of skill and knowledge.

In all cases I am arguing against a scenario where someone of the age of majority is allowed to be legally kidnapped and imprisoned by their own family. LJ, you may not have argued this point, but if you need me to go back through this thread and find places where it has been argued that it should be allowed, I can do that. I refer to Susan's suggestion that the current system, which I support, of trained professionals in custody rather than family members will lead to a Chainsaw massacre scenario.

If no one here is advocating for adults to have their right of consent taken away, for the suspension of kidnapping laws in the case of parents kidnapping adult children for the purposes of "intervention," or for custody of adults to be given to parents when the addict or mentally ill person prefers institutional care, then we have no argument and we can all go home.