Talk:5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold)
|5150 (involuntary psychiatric hold) was a Social sciences and society good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
I'm sorry folks, but this article has but a single reference, that's not really well-referenced. Also, there's a bunch of lists which really need to be turned into prose so the article can have, well Brilliant Prose, the lead could probably be expanded to another paragraph, and there's gotta be more cultural or otherwise references to this law, like how it's been imeplemented before, not just stuff on a few famous people. (Which, itself, is in a list). This article basically just needs a whole lot of work. Homestarmy 18:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Edits by IP 126.96.36.199
My recent edits were under IP: 188.8.131.52, I created a new account and now will edit under "Advocate4you" Thanks.
removed "or feared" from intro, reinforces the idea that all mentally altered individuals are dangerous or should be feared. Removed "When a person is detained or locked-up against their will under a 5150, it can feel like they have no rights at all as a human being. This is why this section on “rights” is so important." The section does not require a thesis statement.
Writ of habeas corpus
I'd like to note that because 5150 expires before habeas corpus can be processed, it is usually against a person's interest to attempt to legally challenge 5150, which makes it useful as a punitive measure (as a friend of mine found out - the hospital specifically said that they would extend his hold time if he tried to file for habeas corpus until the entire process had played out through the beaurocracy, which effectively meant another week in the psych ward. If he didn't contest, they said they'd release him after the weekend, even when they agreed he didn't need to be there). 184.108.40.206 (talk) 18:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)
Good cause in depth
Deleted material in "good cause" section of 5150 because info was not a “good cause” issue under regulation but a contraband issue. Good cause must be listed in the patient’s chart and reported to the state quarterly. If this was a good cause issue, every patient admitted would have many “good cause” rights denied. And each would have to be explained and restored once good cause does not exist. However, on the other hand, contraband is policy on items not allowed on the unit and does not enter into the patient record. Perhaps someone could begin a contraband section. Advocate4you (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
"Emergency Department Hold" vs. 5150
Does anyone know the code section under which emergency hospital doctor can place a patient on involuntary hold while waiting for the psychiatrist to arrive and make a 5150 determination, which adds an arbitrary and unlimited "up-front hold time" over and above the 72 hours? PPdd (talk) 21:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Multiple articles or article name change?
Since there are other kinds of involuntary psychiatric holds, I suggest either a separate article for each one, or that they be merged into a general article with title "Involuntary psychiatric Holds". Since each such hold is entirely different in character and legal rights, and the severity of such holds increases with each level, it makes no sense to group them all under the heading "5150". This discussion likely occured already in part, but I cannot find it, and it likely needs to be renewed, since the result was an article with no mention of holds beyond 3 plus 14 days. PPdd (talk) 21:49, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
"The Process" — Wall Of Text Syndrome, too "LA" specific
The "Process" section of this article exhibits severe symptoms of Wall Of Text Syndrome (WP:WALLOFTEXT); it is really hard to read. It also speaks exclusively about the procedures used by the county of Los Angeles, but not necessarily used by the State of California as a whole. I'd like to significantly reduce this section by summarizing the key points, moving the Los Angeles-specific text to a new section, or eliminating it entirely. Ke6jjj (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2014 (UTC)