Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Involuntary Commitment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate advances involuntary-commitment overhaul after extended debate
Summary
The Utah Senate moved a substitute version of Senate Bill 27 — labeled the 'Susan Gollin Voluntary Commitment Amendments' — forward to third reading after lengthy debate over narrowing definitions, shifting standards from 'immediate danger' to 'substantial danger,' and adding family participation and advanced directives.
The Utah Senate on Feb. 14 advanced a substitute version of Senate Bill 27, a package of changes to the state's involuntary-commitment laws, after more than an hour of debate and a roll-call that sent the measure to the third-reading calendar.
Senator Blackham, sponsor of the substitute, said the bill replaces the "immediate danger" standard with a "substantial danger" standard, shortens certain confinement deadlines from court days to calendar days, requires consideration of relevant historical information, authorizes family participation when the patient agrees, and creates a procedure for advanced directives so individuals can specify their care preferences in advance. "This is a bill that'll help those that keep their situation hopefully from occurring less," Blackham said, describing the effort as the work of a task force that included mental-health stakeholders.
Opponents and questioners, including Senator Thomas and Senator Gladwell, sought firmer, consistent definitions of terms such as "serious physical harm" and "substantial danger," raising concerns about how judges would apply the standard. Senator Thomas asked whether "serious physical harm" would be determined by the court and how narrowly that term was defined; Blackham pointed listeners to the bill's definitions, noting the bill defines "serious bodily injury" to include a "substantial risk of death, unconsciousness, extreme physical pain, protracted disfigurement, or loss or impairment of bodily function," and tied the "substantial danger" language to those definitions.
Senator Gladwell said he intended an amendment to create a single defined term used consistently throughout the bill and asked to continue work on the language; Blackham and other supporters agreed to incorporate clarifying language and to report back. Senator Hale and others expressed support for the bill's advanced-directive provisions and family-involvement mechanisms, arguing they would help families and improve outcomes.
After the discussion, the Senate called the question. Second substitute Senate Bill 27 was read for a third time and the roll-call showed 24 ayes, 1 nay and 4 absent; the measure passed to the third-reading calendar for final consideration.
Next steps: the sponsor and interested senators indicated they would reconcile the remaining definitional inconsistencies and have clarifying amendments ready for final consideration on third reading.
