This doesn't seem entirely fair. My right to refuse medical treatment now depends on my housing status?
I live in California and I recently tried to help a friend get mental health treatment. We were refused because they were already at capacity and simply couldn't take on any more people. They even admitted she obviously needed help, but there was nothing they could do.
The obvious solution is to increase funding for public mental health services so they actually have enough resources to help people in need. At the moment, people who want treatment can't even get it, so it's very confusing when the state seems to think forcing treatment upon homeless people and undermining fundamental human rights is some kind of "solution".
I definitely worry about edge cases. This is the sort of law that seems ripe for unintended side effects/consequences.
It doesn't seem hard to imagine someone living on the street/in their car in the Bay Area and not having housing, but having a job and feeling trapped. That trapped feeling makes them not quit the job or move to another area, for fear of being in a worse position. I worry there are more people in this type situation than we know. I wouldn't want people like this to be put into an institution.
I live in California and I recently tried to help a friend get mental health treatment. We were refused because they were already at capacity and simply couldn't take on any more people. They even admitted she obviously needed help, but there was nothing they could do.
The obvious solution is to increase funding for public mental health services so they actually have enough resources to help people in need. At the moment, people who want treatment can't even get it, so it's very confusing when the state seems to think forcing treatment upon homeless people and undermining fundamental human rights is some kind of "solution".