I hope my post did not come off as believing she is “faking” it or to doubt the MH professionals who evaluated her. Rather, I was questioning the timeline of her competency. When did her ability to participate in her own defense truly come into question? I know she was evaluated fairly recently, but is this an acute event or something more long term?
As a MH professional myself, I have seen many patients who attempt to abuse the MH system for personal gain and malingering is common. I think it is reasonable to ask questions about the information we don’t have access to related to LV without questioning the professionals, given her background. I certainly stand by the decisions of all those who have/will evaluate Lori! If there is any shred of concern about her competency it is best for her to be evaluated and treated.
Someone upthread had requested Idaho’s laws on involuntary treatment (from the Idaho Dept. of Corrections):
http://forms.idoc.idaho.gov/WebLink/0/edoc/283162/Involuntary Medication and Treatment.pdf
“Basis for Non-emergency Involuntary Medication
An offender may be subject to non-emergency involuntary medication but only if the Involuntary Medication Hearing Committee (IMHC) holds an involuntary medication hearing, and only if the IMHC finds that the offender:
• Suffers from a ‘mental disorder’ and is gravely disabled; and/or
• Suffers from a mental disorder and poses a likelihood of causing serious harm to
himself, others, or their property.
Other safeguards that the IMHC will consider when determining whether or not an offender may be subject to non-emergency involuntary medication are when:
• A psychiatrist determined that the offender should be medicated;
• The offender did not consent to the medication after being given the opportunity to
do so;
• All available less restrictive options were exhausted, were shown to be ineffective, or were likely to not be effective;
• The psychiatrist determined that the potential benefits for the proposed medication outweighed the risks associated with it; and
• A less restrictive means of non-emergency treatment was attempted and exhausted, was not successful, was unlikely to succeed, and if true, specifically what means were attempted or exhausted, and what was the basis for concluding that the treatment did not succeed or was unlikely to succeed.”
Lastly, I hope someone can clarify for me, do we know why LV’s proceedings had previously been placed on hold? TYIA!
