Jump to content

Talk:Laura's Law

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is POV

[edit]

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

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
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)[reply]
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)[reply]


Randall Hagar

[edit]

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)[reply]

Evidence of Efficacy POV

[edit]

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

207.207.28.154 (talk) 01:29, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)." [1]

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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.crimesolutions.gov/ProgramDetails.aspx?ID=228
[edit]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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 IITalk to my owner:Online 09:49, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Office of Mental Health and Duke studies

[edit]

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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

[edit]

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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Laura%27s_Law&oldid=1208108224"