Tracking Virginia’s General Assembly
since 2007.
HB1904: Outpatient treatment orders; changes first criterion to include failure to properly take medication.
Chief Patron
Del.
Dave Albo (R-42)
Dave Albo
(R-42)
Served: 1994–
Progress
| Introduced | |
| Passed Committee | |
| Passed House | |
| Passed Senate | |
| Signed by Governor | |
| Became Law |
Status
Bill is Dead
Summary
Mental health; outpatient treatment orders. Changes the first criterion for outpatient treatment orders to include failure to properly take medication that has been previously prescribed, when such failure will likely cause the person to present an imminent danger to himself or others, or to be so seriously mentally ill as to be substantially unable to care for himself.
View Full Text »
Poll Results
18 votes
Tags
Bill Text
Related Bills
Introduced: January 03, 2007
Status: assigned to subcommittee
: Assisted outpatient treatment; establishes program for severely mentally ill.Status: assigned to subcommittee
Introduced: December 11, 2006
Status: assigned to subcommittee
: Outpatient treatment orders; changes criteria therefor.Status: assigned to subcommittee
Introduced: October 23, 2006
Status: assigned to subcommittee
: Involuntary commitment hearings; law students may represent petitioner without practicing attorney.Status: assigned to subcommittee
Introduced: December 22, 2006
Status: assigned to subcommittee
: Involuntary temporary detention; issuance and execution of order.Status: assigned to subcommittee
Introduced: January 08, 2007
Status: signed by governor
: Admission hearings, involuntary; adds providers to list by which an examiner may be employed.Status: signed by governor

Comments
What if the failure to take medication is because the medication isn't working? What if the failure to take medication is because of bad side effects? And what does "likely" mean? 5% chance of meeting the commitment standard? 20% chance? Didn't Virginia just last year finally pass a bill requiring clear and convincing evidence as the standard for commitment? So how is this bill not in conflict with that law and with the U.S. Supreme Court decision of 20 odd years ago it was written to comply with? Oh, and whose crystal ball are we going to use to determine who is "likely" to become dangerous to themselves or others?
Tabled in second committee.
Thank you to everyone who worked to keep this bill from passing!