Thread by @kateneuropsych

@BandyXLee1 THREAD: Why the PRINCIPALS of both LAW & MEDICINE should be considered.
Though some may try what you suggest, there's no legal standing for what you propose (which if taken seriously, would set a disastrous legal/civil precedent) & any serious attempt 1/x

@BandyXLee1 would promptly be tossed by t/courts.

And here's why: Unfortunately, there are NO LEGAL FEDERAL GUIDELINES (other than t/Constitution) that provide t/legal means or standing for you, or any other Doc, let alone any number of citizens co-signing a 911 call/petition 2/x

@BandyXLee1 (that's what the ballot box is for) to bring about, what you propose (re: POTUS & emergency involuntary Med intervention, evaluation & removal for t/dangerous risk he poses followed by treatment) which is imminently more complex & entangled in legal process/procedure than 3/x

@BandyXLee1 your Tweet (hwvr right you are) thread implies.
Those interested in a state by state (yes they each have individual legal guidelines, thus NO FEDERAL policy for involuntary commitment exists) can see a State by State listing of criterion here: mentalillnesspolicy.org/national-studi…
4/x

@BandyXLee1 But let's take the entire scenario into consideration here to shake things out a bit.
For instance, we should consider the following, who's going to inform POTUS he's being removed because of risk fo danger (to others) & incompetent to do his job 5/x

@BandyXLee1 (but not legally incompetent)? If VPOTUS & his CABINET DO NOT call for eval based on incompetency, how w/could anyone FORCE HIM TO COMPLY with such an order, or would such an evaluation be forced upon him?

Typically those who carry out such orders (AFTER A DOC 6/x

@BandyXLee1 SIGNS Med/legal declaration that the individual is a danger to self or others) end up confronting resistance and need to take protective steps including immobilising patients for safety (their own and others), engage in forcible removal from the site and transportation to a 7/x

@BandyXLee1 hospital or magistrate for adjudication are the police.

Who is going to call the police? No one in Congress! Moreover, D.C. police do not have jurisdiction over Fed Gov.

Who are you going to call and how will they gain the legal standing to preform the duties 8/x

@BandyXLee1 of forcible removal and compliance?
There is NO LEGAL CONSTITUTIONAL MEANS by which to accomplish what you imply.
If you (justifiably) want to try something beyond what t/current legal & constitutional framework allows, you will have to go through THE CURRENT LEGAL SYSTEM 9/x

@BandyXLee1 TO ESTABLISH A NEWER MEANS AND FRAMEWORK TO DO SO.
This would equally mean changes to the constitution which would entail not just the development and agreement by MH professionals of an evidence based framework, but legal scholars, then RATIFICATION 10/x

@BandyXLee1 BY majority vote across 2/3 of these United States (good luck with that; 96 yrs the amendment giving women equal rights has been in process) after which, congress would pass such changes (arguably, we will all be dead by then)

Moreover, while you can temporarily remove 11/x

@BandyXLee1 someone’s civil rights for narrow MH reasons (involuntary commit) if they display behavioral signs & are clearly at imminent risk for danger/harm, you'd have a HARD TIME PROVING Trump was dangerous as he is not directly at imminent risk of hurting himself, someone else 12/x

@BandyXLee1 or even killing them. One could argue his strategic Media campaigns inciting racial violence, hate crimes, the targeting & smearing of individual citizens & outing the Whistleblower are evidence of his danger to others but those are in fact LEGAL issues. 13/x

@BandyXLee1 LETS BE CLEAR: (caps for emphasis) IT IS t/POSITION TRUMP HOLDS & t/WILLINGNESS OF THOSE AROUND HIM TO DO HIS BIDING WHILE COVERING HIS MEDICAL BUT NOT LEGAL INCOMPETENCY THAT MAKES TRUMP, GIVEN HIS PATHOLOGY/PROGRESSIVE BRAIN DISEASE IMMINENTLY DANGEROUS(& not Trump himself)14/x

@BandyXLee1 If Trump did not occupy the WH there would be no call, cause, case or legal reason to remove him (via involuntary commitment, or for treatment against a his will) for his own or others safety for MH reasons; for legal crimes absolutely, but not for MH reasons. 15/x

@BandyXLee1 Given t/above, and as someone's dangerousness due to their position of power is not included in mental health law as legal standing for involuntary commitment, evaluation or treatment THERE IS NO OTHER LEGAL REMEDY AT THIS TIME BUT IMPEACHMENT.

But lets just say for 16/x

@BandyXLee1 hypothetical: Trump was forcibly taken (although by whom without the VP or Cabinets say so I can't imagine) to Walter Reed Hospital for "dangerous risk" (to others)....
Until evaluated otherwise, Trump would be assumed to retain the ‘capacity' to make his 17/x

@BandyXLee1 own treatment decisions including refusing an evaluation .

Therefore, even though Trump might act dangerously, (& lets be clear, his actions ONLY constitute a clear and present danger to others because he sits in the WH) Trump would still 18/x

@BandyXLee1 retain his capacity (meaning his legal right) to refuse both an evaluation and any treatment proposed; in which case you'd need to go through the Courts for a determination on that.

And on that score, hes likely to be long out of office before we ever saw the inside of a 19/x

@BandyXLee1 courtroom for that hearing.

Moreover, I can't think of any action more likely to spark violent action from those in his base predisposed to organized hate crimes, civil violence and civil war (including GOP who either actively promote the same 20/x

@BandyXLee1 or sit passively by quoting scripture) than forcibly removing Trump from office for MH reasons citing dangerous risk and then what... holding him for non-compliance while adjudicating capacity?

The nitty gritty down and dirty truth relative to the processes
21/x

@BandyXLee1 and procedures needed to operationalize what you propose is/are both problematic & sorely lacking in t/current system not to mention nigh impossible/grindingly slow to change; & given the office Trump holds, what you propose can not possibly be carried out with any degree 22/x

@BandyXLee1 of success (not to mention the risk to civilian unrest, compensation and peoples lives, should any of this even appear, in any way to stretch beyond what is allowed via t/ current legal framework).

I know, deep in my bones as both a clinician/neuropsychologist & long time 23/x

@BandyXLee1 genocide scholar, you are, as many of us rotating through the public education circuit have equally warned, absolutely 1000% correct relative to the level of urgency & risk posed by Trump (just without t/legal means or standing to act), & as time is of essence & as there's 24/x

@BandyXLee1 no viable QUICK FIX for t/system of legal/Constitutional processes/procedures currently in place, IMHO we need to use our energies wisely & efficiently towards what can actually be done to offset WHAT is surely coming & t/prevention of much worse as efficiently & effectively 25/x

@BandyXLee1 as possibly by leveraging the hell out of the system we currently have instead to trying to change or take action beyond t/legal confines as they will most certainly be found unsustainable; 26/x

@BandyXLee1 and risk in reality, giving rise to the kind of civil violence we might hope to prevent as t/rule of law will be seen as lost. 27/x
END

(More re: legal competence and capacity can be found here: mentalillnesspolicy.org/ivc/involuntar…)

@BandyXLee1 @threadreaderapp please unroll