Arizona Revised Statute 9-21-105. Human Rights Committees.
A. According to A.R.S. §§ 41-3803 and 41-3804, the Department shall establish human rights committees to provide independent oversight to ensure that the rights of clients and enrolled children are protected. The Department shall establish at least one human rights committee for each region and the Arizona State Hospital. Upon the establishment of a human rights committee, if more than 2,500 clients reside within a region, the Department shall establish additional human rights committees until there is one human rights committee for each 2,500 clients in a region. (SEE FULL STATUTE BELOW)
DEAR MR. (WILL) HUMBLE (August, 2012): As per AZ law, I would like to learn that an in-hospital Human Rights panel, represented by both members of the public as well as patients and their families, as per requirement under state and federal law, has been established and put into action by now, for in 2011 alone there were at least 15-18 requests for this to be created and arranged for by ASH executive staff; as wonderful as the news from your official blog might look to the general public, I know that the reality of patient life at ASH is anything but what the public might believe if all they can rely upon are vacuum-like statements such as your own upbeat advocacy about the health of ASH at this time.
Thank you. ------- (PJ Reed.)
Thank you. ------- (PJ Reed.)
INTRODUCTION: The requirement of ensuring reasonable public access to the overall operation of The Arizona State Hospital is one that arises in federal as well as state law. This has everything to do with the fact that each and every ASH patient is a citizen of Arizona, as well in terms of the United States; and also has clear significance in terms of the history underlying state mental institutions across the board, with specific respect for the fact that such facilities are well known as far too often operating far behind contemporary medical standards. The core reason for this fact relates to ongoing and endemic forms of cultural discrimination against persons affected by serious mental illness and disability, and the associated fact that in places such as ASH, graphically unlawful violations of patient' rights occur as a matter of standard practice. At various points in the history of civil and human rights concerns that the American public have about the affairs of persons affected by chronic disability, including with respect for persons affected by serious mental illness, congressional level legislative action has contributed to a range of bright line law(s) and policy(s) that require all states to comply with such legal standards, as seen in the Americans With Disabilities Act, and other like law. In this context, as per Arizona Administrative Law, as it directly flows from superseding federal law, dictates the requirement of an established functioning "human rights commission" at the The Arizona State Hospital, assigned as such to respond to any patient (or patient family member, etc.) who has reason to believe their human rights have been comprised, violated, or otherwise negatively effected by staff misconduct, at all levels of employ. In summer 2011, while hospitalized at ASH, I was advised by a human rights advocate named John Gallagher that the Hospital was lacking in any such human rights commission, which immediately compelled me to do whatever I could in terms of seeing that this resource be provided to the ASH patient community- myself included. I did in short time contact the Arizona department of health services administrative office by mail, and thereafter received a letter stating that the sole reason there being no such body of public resource at ASH was due to no actual interest, as in: "We have attempted to attract members of the public in order to establish a human rights commission at ASH, but there has never been any response." At that point in time, as an ASH patient, and given that I was limited by the rules and regulations wherein no patient has clear and unfettered access to phone usages, postal resources, etc., I was forced to leave this issue on the burner, as it were; but in the months following my February 2012 discharge from ASH, I make a point of directing no less than three formal letters of concern about the matter to the ADHS/BHS legal administrative legal office, as well as the ADHS/BHS Office of Grievances and Appeals, and ultimately, to Will Humble, ADHS Director. The subsequent story precedes as follows, beginning with a very recent exposure of the continuing failure of ASH administrators to abide by this area of law, as it stands.
"AZ mental hospital oversight committee claims officials blocking them from doing work."
UPDATE 2014: As stated above, and as a matter of documented fact, I formally requested that Arizona Department of Health Services Director Will Humble immediately address the absence of a legally required citizen based human rights, this following my 13 full of being subjected to grossly unlawful staff misconduct as an ASH patient, January 2010-February 2012. During that period of time, I was advised by an outside source that such a panel was required as such, but no attempt on my part to see that this issue be addressed was given due attention. Thus, in addition to a formal hard copy letter to the man, I did formally submit the following commentary to Will Humble's so called "blog", which apparently contribute to the establishment of a Human Rights Commission at ASH. See (2) below:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
Dear Mr. Humble: Two questions, and only two, which I will be really surprised to see you answer in good faith. But, if you can and do in fact offer some nature of honest statement in response, then I and my peer-assocaties will greatly appreciate your time and effort in this context:
(1) I would love to hear input from ASH staff (other than executive staff, please, ideally your BHTs and non-supervisoral nursing staff, all of whom work closer to the patients that any other ASH staff) about these “Culture of Care” approaches, e.g. the “Non Violent Crisis Intervention"; as you surely know, many of these good hearted staff persons are very, very disturbed by the impacts of these changes, with particular respect for the marked increase in patient on patient violence, as well as direct threats to staff.
(2) As per AZ law, I would like to learn that an in-hospital Human Rights panel, represented by both members of the public as well as patients and their families, as per requirement under state and federal law, has been established and put into action by now, for in 2011 alone there were at least 15-18 requests for this to be created and arranged for by ASH executive staff; as wonderful as the news from your official blog might look to the general public, I know that the reality of patient life at ASH is anything but what the public might believe if all they can rely upon are vacuum-like statements such as your own upbeat advocacy about the health of ASH at this time.
In closing, sir, and will all due respect, I plead with you to present your responses in public, ideally through your blog in clear and simple language, and feel free to use my name, even my true name (and not my pseudonym- I know that you know exactly who I am). It is never too late to do the right thing, no tin my world, at least. . And for what is it worth, the Joint Commission is definitely part of a certain loop today (for the first time in my experience as an advocate, and not for publicizing a seemingly mythical description of how ASH should be ran, but rather in terms of the voices of patients and staff, who tell the true story). Thank you. ----------- (PJ Reed)
------------------------------------------------------
NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ABOVE COMMENTARY TO WILL HUMBLE'S BLOG WAS NEVER PUBLISHED BY HE AND HIS BUTT HEADED STAFF. But at some point within the next 6-8 months of the above direct communication with Humble, I became aware that a Human Rights Commission (panel) had been assembled at The Arizona State Hospital, as per the law. And within 4 weeks of the establishment of this panel, I began providing data to one member of that panel, whose name I will leave out of the record (at this time). Sadly, I subsequently found this representative of the newly formed panel effectively refused to take my input to heart, to such an extent that I determined (yet again) that ASH was failing to meet its lawfully required obligations in the context. It was clear to me that despite my success in bringing about the establishment of an active HRC at ASH, there were still far too many shortfalls specific to the function of HRC at that time. On the basis of my prior experiences as they stood, with direct relation to the ineptitude of all ADHS/BHS/ASH authorities that I had witnessed, I thus ceased to directly communicate with that person in early 2013.
Much more recently (early 2014), I was contacted by separate/current member of HRC, who informed me that her review of this blog had confirmed issues that she had identified; and she did in fact seek my assistance in further addressing these issues across the board. I subsequently agreed to reengage in a good faith flow of communication with that person, and the HRC in general. This flow of communication also led to ABC Ch 15's executive investigative reporter David Biscobing- who I have been collaborating with for over a full year- taking an interest in the HRC panel. And as the above ABC Ch 15 article illustrates, things are looking up, in a manner of speaking. But is still quite clear that much work still needs to be done in terms of holding the Rat Bastards at ASH and in the broader ADHS construct accountable, as per the letter of law.
R9-21-105. Human Rights Committees
A. According to A.R.S. §§ 41-3803 and 41-3804, the Department shall establish human rights committees to provide independent oversight to ensure that the rights of clients and enrolled children are protected. The Department shall establish at least one human rights committee for each region and the Arizona State Hospital. Upon the establishment of a human rights committee, if more than 2,500 clients reside within a region, the Department shall establish additional human rights committees until there is one human rights committee for each 2,500 clients in a region.
B. Each human rights committee shall be composed of at least seven and not more than 15 members. At least two members of the committee shall be clients or former clients, at least two members shall be relatives of clients, two members shall be parents of enrolled children and at least three members shall have expertise in one of the following areas: psychology, law, medicine, education, special education, social work, or behavioral health services.
C. The director shall appoint the initial members to each regional committee and the human rights committee for the Arizona State Hospital. The Director shall appoint members to fill vacancies on a human rights committee, subject to the approval of the committee.
D. Each committee shall meet at least four times each year. Within three months of its formation, each committee shall establish written guidelines governing the committee's operations. These guidelines shall be consistent with A.R.S. §§ 41-3803 and 41-3804. The adoption and amendment of the committee's guidelines shall be by a majority vote of the committee and shall be submitted to the Director for approval.
E. No employee of or individual under contract with the Department, regional authority, or service provider may be a voting member of a committee.
F. If a member of a human rights committee or the human rights committee determines that a member has a conflict of interest regarding an agenda item, the member shall refrain from:
G. Each committee shall, within its respective jurisdiction, provide independent oversight and review of:
2. Reports filed with the committee under R9-21-203 and R9-21-204 concerning the use of seclusion, restraint, abuse, neglect, exploitation, mistreatment, accidents, or injuries;
4. Violations of rights of clients and enrolled children and conditions requiring investigation under Article 4 of this Chapter;
H. Within its jurisdiction, each human rights committee shall, for a client who needs special assistance, and may, for other clients and enrolled children:
2. Meet with the client, including a client who needs special assistance, in residential environments to determine satisfaction of the clients with the residential environments; and
3. Inspect client records, including client records for clients who need special assistance, except as prohibited by federal or state law and a client's right to privacy.
I. A committee may request the services of a consultant or staff person to advise the committee on specific issues. The cost of the consultant or staff person shall be assumed by the Department or regional authority subject to the availability of funds specifically allocated for that purpose. A consultant or staff person may, in the sole discretion of the committee, be a member of another committee or an employee of the Department, regional authority, or service provider. No committee consultant or staff person shall vote or otherwise direct the committee's decisions.
J. Committee members and committee consultants and staff persons shall have access to client records according to A.R.S. §§ 36-509(13) and 41-3804(I). If a human rights committee's request for information or records is denied, the committee may request a review of the decision to deny the request according to A.R.S. § 41-3804(J). Nothing in this rule shall be construed to require the disclosure of records or information to the extent that such information is protected by A.R.S. § 36-445 et seq.
K. On the first day of the months of January, April, July, and October of each year, each committee shall issue a quarterly report summarizing its activities for the prior quarter, including any written objections to the Director according to A.R.S. § 41-3804(F), and make any recommendations for changes it believes the Department or regional authorities should implement. In addition, the committee may, as it deems appropriate, issue reports on specific problems or violations of client's rights. The report of a regional committee shall be delivered to the regional authority and the Division.
2. A regional authority or the Arizona State Hospital, as applicable, to conduct an investigation for an enrolled child.
Historical Note
Adopted under an exemption from A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6 pursuant to Laws 1992, Ch. 301, § 61, effective October 7, 1992; received in the Office of the Secretary of State October 14, 1992 (Supp. 92-4). Amended under an exemption from A.R.S. Title 41, Chapter 6 pursuant to Laws 1992, Ch. 301, § 61, effective September 30, 1993 (Supp. 93-3). Former Section R9-21-105 renumbered to R9-21-104; new Section R9-21-105 renumbered from R9-21-106 and amended by exempt rulemaking at 9 A.A.R. 3296, effective June 30, 2003 (Supp. 03-2).
IN CLOSING: A big thanks to David Biscobing and Sharon Ashcroft. As a former member of the ASH patient community, and a current member of our nation's mentally ill community, I cannot say loudly enough how critical your participation is, in fact. These two individuals have proven themselves as willing and able to take on a task that very few other like professionals are up to contributing to, and as per my varied experiences stand today (as an advocate for the ASH patient community), this is a matter of fact. Patient abuse and associated administrative/clinical negligence and ineptitude is as bad as it gets in the context of criminal misconduct, as established by contemporary health care ethics and law. But due to ongoing patterns of abject discrimination(s) against all/any persons affected by serious mental illness and disability, those persons in whom the public is willing to most trust in terms of overseeing the affairs of the ASH patients are currently engaging in violating virtually all elements of their responsibilities. This is and has long been occurring at the expense of AZ taxpayers, to the deep detriment of ASH patients, patient' families, and the public in general. Bottom line.
paoloreed@gmail.com
No comments:
Post a Comment
I would really love input of any kind from anybody with any interest whatsoever in the issues that I am sharing in this blog. I mean it, anybody, for I will be the first one to admit that I may be inaccurately depicting certain aspects of the conditions
at ASH, and anonymous comments are fine. In any case, I am more than willing to value anybody's feelings about my writing, and I assure you that I will not intentionally exploit or otherwise abuse your right to express yourself as you deem fit. This topic is far, far too important for anything less. Thank you, whoever you are. Peace and Frogs.