I am glad she is caught, but wondering why this happened at all.
From another article[1] it sounds like psychological issues:
> [The woman's attorney's] filing stated, "She has not acknowledged the existence of her own medical condition. Because counsel is bound to represent the respondent's stated interest, a guardian ad litem would be able to provide representation of her best interests, which are not currently clear."
> [ . . . ]
> The filing added that when "the respondent has joined proceedings, she has spoken out of turn with rapid, disorganized speech."
> It noted, "She has primarily focused on how she dislikes papers coming to her home, and not the import of the process in which she finds herself. She has repeatedly threatened suicide in relationship to papers being served upon her home."
[1] https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272657405.h...
This creates a catch-22 where people that have previously-undiagnosed mental health conditions are denied access to basic healthcare. Worse, even if you were previously certified insane (e.g., for paranoid schizophrenia or manic depression) and have temporarily recovered, it's extremely difficult (impossible?) to sign away your future self's ability to decline medical care, even knowing that you would only do that because of a mental health relapse that makes you unable to care for yourself.
A large percentage of the crazy homeless people you see when walking outside in bay area cities fell into that legal trap (according to workers at our local emergency mental health facilities).
I guess the above now applies to regular health care, since they've decided that imprisoning this woman indefinitely for being sick and unable to care for herself is more compassionate than putting her through a round of antibiotics.
second, in California, a person can be involuntarily held if they are deemed a risk to themselves or others. This is typically done in a mental health facility.
third, you can't really force treatment on anything in the united states, if someone refuses care, the hospital can't just keep you there against your will. Are you advocating for the return of institutionalization?
edited to add: to be super clear: you don't want to make it easy for people to abuse the elderly, which is why the bar has to be high, but there must be a way to compassionately help someone who actually needs help. And there basically isn't.
This is very literally not the case. In California, hospitals 51-50 people all the time. It's an involuntary 72 hour hold and the criteria for meeting it is not high at all. A professional just has to deem you are a danger to yourself or others. That's the bar, and it's easily met for healthcare providers.
Maybe she's a worthless drunk shitbag, maybe she's just not all there and doesn't believe or really understand the problem.
I don't think it matters too much except when I want to use it as ammo. If she was religious, and I am not, awesome vindicating example for my side I can pull out the next time I want one.
Well I don't like how much I would like that, so I don't think it's very valid, and maybe it's correct that they don't go all "let's lift up this rock and gawp at the ugly bugs all crawling around in there".
Maybe they have no choice. Maybe the police and hospitals carefully don't disclose anything like that for exactly that reason.
It also matters for judging how the system treats someone.
I don't think that's a Tacoma thing. That's just a person in a bad way that's difficult to help.
What I keep wondering is if the authorities can find her family or anyone that could assume legal guardianship for her and get her treatment. She's going to die of TB because she doesn't understand she's that sick. She clearly had acquaintances that were willing to drive her around. Is this a case that no one is willing to come forward for her?
Update: Her son is at least trying to follow up:
> On May 1, a person who identified himself as the woman’s son called the Health Department, according to court filings, and asked if his mother had missed her hearing and when the next hearing would be held. The next hearing is scheduled for June 23.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/23/us/washington-tuberculosi...
Like other Rust Belt cities, Gary's once thriving steel industry has been significantly affected by the disappearance of local manufacturing jobs since the 1970s. As a result of this economic shift, the city's population has decreased drastically, having lost 61% of its population since 1960.
I see Gary also had paper plants, but I think it also had a ton of other industrial activity.
Seems like quite the challenge, compliance wise.
I have more than one family member who could totally do this, and not all of them are religious anti vaxxers or are diagnosed as mentally ill or anything. In fact, I am a little surprised so many HNers see this behavior as unusual.
EDIT: https://www.thenewstribune.com/news/local/article272657405.h...
"Tofflemire’s filing stated, “She has not acknowledged the existence of her own medical condition. Because counsel is bound to represent the respondent’s stated interest, a guardian ad litem would be able to provide representation of her best interests, which are not currently clear.
A guardian ad litem is defined by Washington courts as “an individual appointed by the court to represent the best interests of a child or incapacitated person involved in a case in Superior Court."
The filing added that when “the respondent has joined proceedings, she has spoken out of turn with rapid, disorganized speech.”
It noted, “She has primarily focused on how she dislikes papers coming to her home, and not the import of the process in which she finds herself. She has repeatedly threatened suicide in relationship to papers being served upon her home.”
(Emphasis mine)
Bad past behavior. Their comment wasn't flag-killed, it was dead on arrival but can be vouched for (presumably you did). When comments show up [dead] (no [flagged]) it's usually some moderation (auto or manual) action that caused it. [flagged][dead] is the result of user flagging.
They can reach out to dang and appeal it (looking briefly through their comments since then I didn't see anything quite like that one that caused the initial ban, but it was a cursory check).