Mental Illness & Gavin Newsom

No, he's not crazy, just an idiot. But this October 10, 2007 editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle takes him to task for a problem that is far more serious than the lack of same-sex marriages:

"Laura's Law" was designed as a way to compel outpatient treatment for severely mentally ill people who pose a danger to themselves or others. It was named after Laura Wilcox, a 19-year-old Nevada County college student who was shot to death by a 41-year-old man who resisted his family's determined efforts to get him into treatment. It took effect in 2003, yet has been implemented in just one county, Los Angeles.

More than a year ago, we asked Mayor Gavin Newsom why San Francisco never exercised its authority under the law, especially with untreated mental illness being such a burden on the city's social services and police. On March 20, 2006, Newsom acknowledged that he "dropped the ball on that" amid other pressing matters. But he emphasized that Laura's Law was "something I was committed to early on" and he would make its implementation a City Hall priority.

He continues to drop the ball.

On Tuesday, Dr. Mitch Katz, director of the city's Department of Health, offered the administration's rationalizations for its neglect of Laura's Law. He explained that it's "fairly resource intensive" to identify and track people with serious mental illness who need compulsory treatment. It is, he added, highly controversial. Such a program would require approval from the Board of Supervisors, which would be difficult to obtain. Katz said he supports Laura's Law, but, given the political reality, he thinks the city's resources are better spent on voluntary treatment programs.

No one ever suggested it would be easy.

Sen. Leland Yee, a San Francisco Democrat and child psychologist who authored the "Laura's Law" extension last year, said his intent was that it would be used sparingly - but there would be cases where compulsory treatment could save lives.

"As a society, we need to step up to the plate to help people who, if left to their own devices, are going to be homeless, are going to get themselves in trouble or are going to hurt themselves or hurt others," Yee said. He added that it was "horrible" for a city to "summarily take away a mental health option" from professionals.

It's even worse when it's one the mayor identified as a priority.

The Newsom budget further narrows its mental-health treatment options with the planned cutback of 14 acute-care beds - critics say it will be closer to 21 - at San Francisco General Hospital. Newsom and Katz insist that many of the patients could be treated cheaper and more effectively in community settings. The professionals on the scene disagree.

"The people we admit are very, very sick," said Dr. Paul Linde, an attending physician in psychiatric emergency at SFGH. He said the vast majority of them are homeless, a "a solid 50 percent" are suicidal and perhaps 10-20 percent pose a danger to others. "If we could avoid putting them in the hospital, we would," Linde said.

The severe problems of the homeless mentally ill have been getting a lot of attention from San Francisco newspapers of late--but unfortunately, those oh so liberal San Franciscans seem more interested in enforcing the laws against being a public nuisance than in helping the severely mentally ill. Here's a chance for liberals to do what they seem to love doing--spending tax money--and actually helping people that are in severely bad shape--another thing that liberals claim to want to do. But perhaps government funding of the Folsom Street Festival with naked men whipping other naked men is more important.