Mark C. Joyce, Esq., managing attorney for Disability Rights Maine.
A recent op-ed on Maine’s Progressive Treatment Program (PTP) statute raises (“Disability rights advocacy must not overlook individual needs,” March 16) concerns the role of disability rights advocacy in cases involving court-ordered mental health treatment.
While the author recognizes the important role of advocacy organizations in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, the piece ultimately shows an incomplete picture of the legal issues involved with work organizations like Disability Rights Maine (DRM) actually do. The op-ed raises important questions about mental health treatment, civil liberties and the role of disability rights advocacy.
On one point, there should be broad agreement: people with serious mental health conditions deserve access to effective, appropriate treatment that supports their ability to live safely and successfully in their communities.
Disability Rights Maine (DRM) shares that goal. Our work involves advocating for individuals with mental illness to obtain the care they are entitled to but are often denied. We routinely represent people whose referrals for services are denied, whose clinical care they need is delayed or unavailable, or whose providers attempt to terminate services earlier. In an underfunded system layered with administrative barriers, many people will simply go without the treatment they want and need without DRM’s advocacy.
The op-ed says disability rights advocacy represents “increasingly rigid opposition to involuntary treatment”. That characterization misses a critical point. The legal question is not whether involuntary treatment can ever occur. The court has long recognized that, in certain circumstances, the state can have what is known as “compelling state interest” that justifies ordering treatment over a person’s objection. The central issue is whether the process used to impose such treatment conforms to constitutional standards. When someone’s freedom is at stake, those protections aren’t abstract technicalities — they’re fundamental protections.
There are also important system-level implications. Maine’s mental health system operates with limited resources, including specialized services such as Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams that are often a component of PTP orders. Ensuring that legal standards are properly applied helps ensure that these intensive services are directed to individuals who truly need them, rather than being diverted through a process that does not evaluate their eligibility.
The op-ed also argues that raising legal issues about the risk of ordering PTP’, ignoring successful results or elevating ideology over life experience. But protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that the care system works properly is not an ideological exercise. It is a necessary part of building an effective and accountable system. A treatment framework should be evaluated not only by individual results, but also by whether it operates safely, lawfully and consistently throughout the system.
Similarly, the claim that disability rights advocacy does not offer a constructive alternative overlooks the important work DRM has done over nearly five decades to improve how mental health services are delivered within existing legal frameworks.
For example, in 2019 the DRM conducted a death investigation involving people who received services under the PTP order. Following that investigation, the DRM issued recommendations to the state of Maine focused on strengthening oversight of PTP care plans and ensuring that community providers participating in those plans are in compliance with required clinical, ethical and regulatory standards.
These recommendations illustrate a broader point: effective mental health policy requires not only legal authority but also accountability and system integrity. Court-ordered treatment plans depend on community providers to deliver the services they promise. Without adequate oversight and resources, legal structures alone cannot ensure safe or effective care.
Mental health policy debates are often framed as a fine choice between civil liberties and care. In reality, the goal should be a system that honors both. People with mental illness deserve access to high-quality services, meaningful process protections and reliable and transparent systems.
Ensure that protection does not leave people in need of care. Instead, it helps build a humane and trustworthy mental health system – one that can support recovery while respecting the rights of the people it serves.
#Good #mental #health #policy #respects #civil #liberties #care #opinion