News   Jul 19, 2024
 221     0 
News   Jul 19, 2024
 454     0 
News   Jul 18, 2024
 1.4K     2 

Rob Ford's Toronto

Status
Not open for further replies.
That's true. Or even going into rehab and deciding he didn't want to after all and walking out 5 minutes later. Unless you get sent to rehab by the courts (and even then, it's possible) you can walk out whenever you want to.

That's not entirely true. Anyone with power of attorney can do so, likewise a judge can deem you unable to make your own decisions and grant you a "caretaker", who can place you in treatment in your best interests.

An ex of mine was schizophrenic, on top of being a heavy user of LSD and ecstacy and dog knows what else. After being found walking the streets of San Francisco buck naked and in a psychosis, she was brought back to Canada and her family put her into homewood for treatment (I suspect both for the addictions and mental illness), without her explicit permission. After a few weeks, she was granted visitations and leave, etc. But by no means was it her choice to be an inpatient and I'm sure she'd have left if she legally had the means.
 
The Sun story stinks to me. Why would Homewood say *anything* about who is or isn't at their facility? Patient confidentiality means you don't confirm OR deny anything.

So either someone at Homewood screwed up OR he really isn't there and they don't want to deal with all the crap that comes with people thinking he's there.
 
Yes, could well be. I was interested just because, based admittedly on nothing but my own and other anecdotal experience, it seemed to me to be the case that Canada was the only country with US customs and immigration clearance at some of its airports.

Heh, no worries, I went the other way with my anecdotal experience and assumed all the major British airports (well, Heathrow as well as Gatwick) would have US immigration sections there because of the one I went through. :D
 
That's not entirely true. Anyone with power of attorney can do so, likewise a judge can deem you unable to make your own decisions and grant you a "caretaker", who can place you in treatment in your best interests.

That's true but unless it's an actual secure facility with locked doors and people who have the legal right to restrain you, there is nothing they can do if you walk out except call the cops and even then it may well be another trip to court to enforce it.
 
Question to UTers: Do you think that if RoFo is in fact at a rehab facility, and the name of said facility was released, that the media would refrain from camping out at it?

Man, I'd like to give them benefit of the doubt. I think the timing and the wording of the statement were clearly political and there isn't much evidence Rob really understands he needs help but after all this, I still have enough of a sliver of faith in humanity to think that his family would get him some legit help at this point. In a way it seems logical he is just stashed somewhere but I hope, for everyone's sake, that isn't the case.

Given how much the Fords have lied, I think the media has the right to confirm he's actually in rehab (and as others have pointed out, the notion he is calling people suggests otherwise) but then they should leave him alone. I don't advocate camping out there; not after it's confirmed. An even tinier sliver of me thinks that they shouldn't have to disclose something so "personal" but then I remember how many times they've crossed that line and I believe the people of Toronto have a right to know that this time he is REALLY getting help, and not just hiring another one of his niece's bodybuilding pals.

And, FWIW, Doug's weight comments suggest to me a man so hopelessly out of touch with reality he probably thinks he can fly if he flaps his arms hard enough. Rob Ford may be Darth Vader, but he's the Emperor in this scenario. What a horrible person that guy is, man.
 
I visited a family member a few years back at Homewood and security is very loose. There is parkland surrounding the facility which is accessible to members of the public. Depending on the type of treatment patients are able to go on off-site excursions to the downtown area or the nearby Tim Hortons.

I bet a trip to Tim's in Guelph would put Rob comfortably into his FN element.
 
If you like Morgan Spurlock style documentaries you should watch the Louis Theroux wild weekend documentaries, he's very funny and his subjects are always entertaining.

I second this. He's done a load of them too, including a recent run based in LA (3 episodes, one on dangerous dogs in South Central LA, one on palliative care homes, and one on sex offenders out on parole / who have served their time). The "When Louis Met..." series he did were pretty good too, though many people here probably won't recognize many of the names of the UK celebs he spends time with. Jon Ronson's books and documentaries are in a very similar vein too.
 
About being on a secure hold - Rob would have had to have signed over a power of attorney or been brought in while stark-raving mad (i.e. psychotic) in order for that to happen (excepting court order). There were probably a few chances for this to happen, but alas, it looks like he's somewhere voluntarily, and so could leave whenever he wanted to.
 
The Sun story stinks to me. Why would Homewood say *anything* about who is or isn't at their facility? Patient confidentiality means you don't confirm OR deny anything.

So either someone at Homewood screwed up OR he really isn't there and they don't want to deal with all the crap that comes with people thinking he's there.

The story is pretty clear that they called and asked to speak to Rob Ford, not that they called and asked if he was there. Big difference.

I had a coworker go AWOL and suspected she was in the local mental health facility, so I called and asked to speak with her. They proceeded to connect me to her room, or perhaps the nurses' station (I hung up as soon as they transferred the call and before it was answered).
 
That's true but unless it's an actual secure facility with locked doors and people who have the legal right to restrain you, there is nothing they can do if you walk out except call the cops and even then it may well be another trip to court to enforce it.

I believe you can only "form" someone into a psychiatric facility under the Mental Health Act if he is a threat to himself or others. I can't see that applying to a for-profit rehab facility.
 
That's not entirely true. Anyone with power of attorney can do so, likewise a judge can deem you unable to make your own decisions and grant you a "caretaker", who can place you in treatment in your best interests.

An ex of mine was schizophrenic, on top of being a heavy user of LSD and ecstacy and dog knows what else. After being found walking the streets of San Francisco buck naked and in a psychosis, she was brought back to Canada and her family put her into homewood for treatment (I suspect both for the addictions and mental illness), without her explicit permission. After a few weeks, she was granted visitations and leave, etc. But by no means was it her choice to be an inpatient and I'm sure she'd have left if she legally had the means.

That's what I meant by "unless you get sent to rehab by the courts..." Getting sectioned like that suggests a court order (the judge you mention, being given power of attorney over someone) which is what I meant. Judging by various American celebs (Lohan etc), even a court-ordered rehab session can be cut short it appears (there've been several stories of celebs (again, Lohan seems to crop up a lot) being sent to rehab by the courts then leaving / being thrown out before they were supposed to leave).
 
brought to you by wiki - Ontario Mental Health Act:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontario_Mental_Health_Act

The following are three common ways that a person may be involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric facility in Ontario for a 72 hour observation period:

Police bring person to physician[edit]
When a person is acting in a disorderly manner, the act allows the police to take any person to a hospital or physician for assessment if they have grounds to believe that the person is an immediate danger to himself or herself, an immediate danger to others, or not able to care for himself or herself to an extent that physical impairment will result. The officer must also believe that the immediate nature of the threat precludes the use of section 16 (Bringing Information before a Justice of the Peace).[1]

Person lays information before Justice of Peace[edit]
In situations where there is no immediate danger, anyone can bring evidence to a justice of the peace that the person is a danger to himself or herself, a danger to others, or is not able to care for himself or herself. The judge can then order a person to be examined by a physician[2] and fill out a Form 2 authorizing the police to take the person to a physician for examination.[3]

A justice of the peace, in making a determination as to whether there is reasonable cause to believe that someone is apparently suffering from a mental disorder of the sort described in section 16, is performing a judicial function and, as such, is not a compellable witness where summonsed to testify at a coroner's inquest.[4]

Physician orders assessment[edit]
Third, where a physician examines a person and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has threatened or attempted or is threatening or attempting to cause bodily harm to himself or herself;
(b) has behaved or is behaving violently towards another person or has caused or is causing another person to fear bodily harm from him or her; or
(c) has shown or is showing a lack of competence to care for himself or herself,
and if in addition the physician is of the opinion that the person is apparently suffering from mental disorder of a nature or quality that likely will result in,

(d) serious bodily harm to the person;
(e) serious bodily harm to another person; or
(f) serious physical impairment of the person,
the physician may make application in the prescribed form for a psychiatric assessment of the person.[5]

Or, where a physician examines a person and has reasonable cause to believe that the person,

(a) has previously received treatment for mental disorder of an ongoing or recurring nature that, when not treated, is of a nature or quality that likely will result in serious bodily harm to the person or to another person or substantial mental or physical deterioration of the person or serious physical impairment of the person; and
(b) has shown clinical improvement as a result of the treatment,
and if in addition the physician is of the opinion that the person,

(c) is apparently suffering from the same mental disorder as the one for which he or she previously received treatment or from a mental disorder that is similar to the previous one;
(d) given the person’s history of mental disorder and current mental or physical condition, is likely to cause serious bodily harm to himself or herself or to another person or is likely to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment; and
(e) is incapable, within the meaning of the Health Care Consent Act, 1996, of consenting to his or her treatment in a psychiatric facility and the consent of his or her substitute decision-maker has been obtained,
the physician may make application in the prescribed form for a psychiatric assessment of the person.[6]

The physician fills out a Form 1 authorizing the police to bring the person in for a psychiatric assessment.[7]

Involuntary admissions[edit]
Once a person has been brought to a psychiatric facility to be assessed, the physician may hold them there for up to 72 hours on an application for psychiatric assessment (Form 1). This form allows the person to be held at a psychiatric facility for assessment, but does not itself permit any treatment without the persons consent.

Consent to treatment is not covered under the Mental Health Act but rather the Health Care Consent Act. The physician must also fill out a Form 42[8] to notify the person and inform them of why they're being held.[9]

At the end of the 72 hours permitted by a Form 1, the person must either be released, be admitted as a voluntary patient, or continue to be held as an involuntary patient with a certificate of involuntary admission (Form 3).[10]

The physician who signs the Form 3 must be different than the physician who signed the initial Form 1.[11]

A Form 3 allows the patient to be held for two weeks and the patient must be notified with a Form 30.

At the end of the two weeks, if the facility is to continue to keep the patient on an involuntary basis, a certificate of renewal (Form 4) must be filled out. The first time a Form 4 is filled out, it is valid for one month, the second time it is filled out it is valid for two months, each time after that, it is valid for three months.[12] Each time a Form 4 is filled out, another Form 30 must be filled out, notifying the patient.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top