I wanted to congratulate my dear wife and Chuck down in San Diego for having their letters to the editor published in today’s paper. Both Chuck and my wife have much different views, as do [I] and other consumers re involuntary treatment, and I would encourage everyone to write a letter to the newspaper, Governor, City Council-person, or even the dog-catcher, if they felt that it would help in supporting the notion of [not] expanding forced treatment. I would caution everyone that the [policy] of NAMI-TAC of chipping away, with the “tweaking of the grave disability part” of the LPS in CA will continue, along with the “balanced approched to treatment” that Carla talks about.

The other issue I’d like to mention [is] the remark that was quoted by Sally Zinman, in the paper re the Rand report. Sally is quoted as saying something to the effect of condemning forced treatment, which I agree with, except when people do meet probable cause for involuntary treatment under the current law, and only when this is the last resort.

The problem with Sally’s remarks was that she said we need more expanded services, not forced treatment. Sally should have been more specific as to what kind of expanded services she was referring to. The same bankrupt, fragmented, disrespectful, rigid, ‘my way or the highway’ service we have now. Or voluntary, flexible, respectful, dignified and realistic services. The kinds of service that are innovative, non-judgmental. the kind that treat consumers with dignity and respect and allow them to become part of their own treament. This is the part that was missing, unless it was cut from the cutting room floor.

We have lots of services in this state. Some good, some awful, some downright illegal. You don’t fix a problem with throwing money at it alone. You spend or fund the kinds of programs that have demonstrated, that work, and are effective.

Gerald Minsk