DOCSLIB.ORG

Involuntary Outpatient Commitment: the Limits of Prevention

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Involuntary Outpatient Commitment: the Limits of Prevention INVOLUNTARY OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT: THE LIMITS OF PREVENTION Candice T. Player* Preventive outpatient commitment laws require people with mental illnesses to participate in mental health treatment before they meet the criteria for inpatient civil commitment—clear and convincing evidence of mental illness and dangerousness to self or others. These laws apply to people who are chronically ill but not imminently dangerous. Most outpatient commitment laws do not require a judicial determination of incompetence, nor do they require a criminal charge or a criminal conviction. As such, outpatient commitment statutes unearth an old question on law, ethics, and the limits of prevention: under what circumstances can we impose substantial restraints on individual liberty because we believe a person is likely to harm himself or others before he actually has done so? Although most authors rest the moral justification for outpatient commitment on a mental impairment—be it impaired insight, decisional-incapacity or incompetence to refuse treatment, this Article claims that government interventions into self-regarding harm and other-regarding harm require distinct moral justifications. When our primary concern is one of self-regarding harm, a court order to participate in outpatient treatment may be appropriate, but only for people with mental illnesses who are incompetent to make treatment decisions on their own. If, however, we are concerned about harm to others, a court order to participate in outpatient treatment may be appropriate, but only for people with mental illnesses who lack the moral capacities for criminal responsibility— either because they are unlikely to appreciate the wrongfulness of their conduct or because they are unable to conform their conduct to the requirements of the law. INTRODUCTION....................................................................................................... 160 I. THE RISE OF OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT ......................................................... 166 A. Deinstitutionalization ................................................................................. 166 1. The (Broken) Promise of Community Mental Health ......................... 166 * Assistant Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law; Ph.D. Ethics and Health Policy, Harvard University 2013; J.D. Harvard Law School, 2009; M.Phil, Institute of Criminology, Cambridge University, 2003 A.B. Harvard College, 2002. I am grateful to Anita L. Allen, Anne Barnhill, Eric Beerbohm, Stephanos Bibas, Dan Brock, Glenn Cohen, Steve Joffe, Michelle Mello, Stephen Morse, Ted Ruger, and Tobias Wolff for their comments on this Article. All errors are my own. 159 160 STANFORD LAW & POLICY REVIEW [Vol. 26:159 2. A Changing Legal Landscape ............................................................. 169 3. “Rotting with Their Rights On” .......................................................... 172 B. Preventive Outpatient Commitment ........................................................... 175 1. New York ............................................................................................ 176 a. Mechanics ...................................................................................... 176 b. Program Implementation ............................................................... 178 2. California ............................................................................................ 179 3. North Carolina ..................................................................................... 181 C. Empirical Research on Effectiveness ......................................................... 182 1. Randomized Controlled Trials ............................................................ 182 2. Observational and Quasi-Experimental Designs ................................. 185 D. Constitutional Challenges .......................................................................... 187 II. MORAL JUSTIFICATIONS AND PUBLIC POLICY RATIONALES ............................. 191 A. Harm to Others........................................................................................... 191 1. Violence and Mental Illness ................................................................ 192 a. Community Surveys ...................................................................... 192 b. Psychosis and Violence ................................................................. 194 2. Risk Assessment and Violence ........................................................... 196 3. The Criminal-Civil Distinction ........................................................... 199 B. Harm to Self ............................................................................................... 201 1. Autonomy Defined .............................................................................. 204 2. Conceptual Hurdles and Replies ......................................................... 205 3. Autonomy and Mental Illness ............................................................. 208 4. When—If Ever—Is Paternalism Justified? ......................................... 210 a. Retrospective Endorsement Theories ............................................ 210 b. The Soft Paternalist Strategy ......................................................... 211 C. Impaired Insight ......................................................................................... 212 1. Impaired Insight Defined .................................................................... 212 2. The Neuroscience of Insight ............................................................... 213 3. Impaired Insight in The Courtroom..................................................... 216 4. An Objection from Autonomy ............................................................ 217 III. THE LIMITS OF PREVENTION ............................................................................. 218 A. Harm to Self ............................................................................................... 220 1. Competence to Refuse Treatment ....................................................... 220 a. Understanding and Appreciation ................................................... 221 b. Reasoning and Communication ..................................................... 225 2. Competence without Insight ................................................................ 228 B. Harm to Others........................................................................................... 229 1. Cognitive Impairment ......................................................................... 231 2. Volitional Impairment ......................................................................... 232 IV. OBJECTIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................... 235 INTRODUCTION In the years since deinstitutionalization, one of the most important questions in mental health policy is this: how can we care for psychiatric patients in the community who need treatment but resist treatment nonetheless? 2015] INVOLUNTARY OUTPATIENT COMMITMENT 161 The problem is particularly apparent for people with chronic mental illnesses who are high utilizers of inpatient care—so called “revolving door patients.” These patients improve when they are hospitalized and treated with psychotropic medications but frequently stop taking their medications shortly after they are released, creating a cycle of relapse and rehospitalization.1 Eventually, revolving door patients will deteriorate and meet the criteria for inpatient civil commitment—clear and convincing evidence of mental illness and dangerousness to self or others. However, involuntary outpatient commitment laws permit courts to intervene and order people with mental illnesses to comply with treatment in the community. A subtype of involuntary outpatient commitment—known as preventive outpatient commitment— permits court-ordered treatment for people with mental illnesses who do not satisfy the criteria for inpatient commitment. Proponents of these laws tout them as a solution to the revolving door problem.2 Forty-two states and the District of Columbia have involuntary outpatient commitment laws.3 At least nine jurisdictions permit preventive outpatient 1. Joan B. Gerbasi et al., Resource Document on Mandatory Outpatient Treatment, 28 J. AM. ACAD. PSYCHIATRY & L. 127, 128 (2000). Many revolving door patients have been diagnosed with schizophrenia or schizoaffective disorder. These patients impose an enormous economic burden on the healthcare system due to the high cost of hospitalization. See Thomas W. Haywood et al., Predicting the “Revolving Door” Phenomenon Among Patients with Schizophrenic, Schizoaffective, and Affective Disorders, 152 AM. J. PSYCHIATRY 856 (1995); Patricia Thieda et al., An Economic Review of Compliance with Medication Therapy in the Treatment of Schizophrenia, 54 PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES 508 (2003); Peter J. Welden & Mark Olfson, Cost of Relapse in Schizophrenia, 21 SCHIZOPHRENIA BULLETIN 419 (1995). 2. See, e.g., Gerbasi et al., supra note 1; Ken Kress, An Argument for Assisted Outpatient Treatment for Persons with Serious Mental Illness Illustrated with Reference to a Proposed Statute for Iowa, 85 IOWA L. REV. 1269 (2000). 3. ALA. CODE § 22-52-10.2 (Westlaw through 2014 Sess.); ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 47.30.795 (West, Westlaw through 2014 Sess.); ARIZ. REV. STAT. ANN. § 36-540 (Westlaw through 2014 Sess.); ARK. CODE. ANN. § 20-47-214(b)(1) (West, Westlaw through 2014 Sess.); CAL. WELF. & INST. CODE §
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Resource Guide for Families Dealing with Mental Illness
    This resource guide is provided by: NAMI Michigan For more information, please contact us: 921 N. Washington Ave. Lansing, MI 48906 517.485.4049 800.331.4264 [email protected] www.namimi.org www.facebook.com/namiofmi www.twitter/namiofmi Please help NAMI Michigan continue to serve those affected by mental illness by joining or donating to our organization. Fill out and mail the form below or go to www.nami.org and join online. NAMI Michigan Membership & Donations Whenever possible, we will refer you to a NAMI affiliate in your community for membership. If you have a preference, please indicate below. Name_____________________________________________ Address___________________________________________ _________________________________________________ City_________________________ State______ Zip_______ Phone____________________________________________ E‐Mail____________________________________________ Regular Membership $35 _______________________ Includes National, State & Local Affiliate nearest you Open Door $3 min. For those with financial hardship Donation All donations are tax deductible. NAMI Michigan is a 501 (c)(3) nonprofit organization Mail to: NAMI Michigan 921 N. Washington Lansing, MI 48906 THE NAMI MICHIGAN FAMILY RESOURCE GUIDE Mental Illness: A Family Resource Guide was written for and dedicated to families who have a relative with mental illness. The first edition, published in 1988, came about through the initiative of Yolanda Alvarado and other members of NAMI Michigan who saw the need to share what they knew with other families. The original manuscript was written by Carol Rees of NAMI Washtenaw County. Many family members, individuals living with brain disorders and mental health professionals have contributed to revisions over the years with special thanks due to attorney Bradley Geller and Marjorie Hartnett for the section on voluntary and involuntary treatment and to Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Involuntary Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill: a System in Need of Change
    Volume 29 Issue 2 Article 2 1983 Involuntary Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill: A System in Need of Change John E. B. Myers Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr Part of the Law and Psychology Commons Recommended Citation John E. Myers, Involuntary Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill: A System in Need of Change, 29 Vill. L. Rev. 367 (1983). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.villanova.edu/vlr/vol29/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Villanova Law Review by an authorized editor of Villanova University Charles Widger School of Law Digital Repository. Myers: Involuntary Civil Commitment of the Mentally Ill: A System in Nee 1983-84] INVOLUNTARY CIVIL COMMITMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL: A SYSTEM IN NEED OF CHANGE JOHN E. B. MYERSt Table of Contents Introduction .................................................. 368 I. THE RISE OF INSTITUTIONS ............................. 368 II. DEVELOPMENT OF INVOLUNTARY COMMITMENT LAW... 375 A. HistoricalDevelopment ..................... .......... 375 B. The Authority of the State to Impose Involuntay Commit- ment-The Parens Patriae Power ..................... 380 III. THE DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION MOVEMENT ............. 388 A. HistoricalDevelopment ................................ 388 B. The Contribution of the Courts to Deinstitutionah'zation.... 394 C. Treatment in the Least Restrictive Environment ........... 400 IV. FAILINGS OF THE DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION MOVEMENT ......................................................... 40 3 A. The "Community's" Failure to Provide Adequate Commu- nity-Based Treatment Resources ......................... 403 B. The Shortcomings of Denstitutionah'zationare Exacerbated by Restrictive Commitment Laws ........................ 409 V. ALTERNATIVES FOR CHANGE IN THE SYSTEM OF INVOL- UNTARY TREATMENT OF THE MENTALLY ILL ..........
    [Show full text]
  • Guardian's Authority to Involuntarily Hospitalize the Incompetent Ward JOHN L
    Guardian's Authority to Involuntarily Hospitalize the Incompetent Ward JOHN L. SULLIVAN, J.D.,LL.M.* A Guardian may give any consents or approvals that may be necessary to enable the ward to receive medical or other professional care, counsel, treatment or service. Section 5-312(a) (3) Uniform Probate Code If Section 5-312(a) (3) is accepted as a composite or representative definition of a guardian of the person's state law statutory authority to deal with the care and custody of his incompetent ward in matters relating to medical management, any private hospital could admit, on the signature of the guardian, any so-called "lucid" incompetent. The limitation to a consideration of private hospital admission is made because it is almost universal practice for state or governmental hospitals to demand a civil commitment order before admitting an involuntary patient, whether declared incompetent or not. The so-called "lucid" incompetent is the adjudicated incompetent who still can be heard to protest the decisions made for him by his guardian. The labeling and attendant distinction of the "lucid" incompetent is useful in categorizing those cases where courts have been called upon to render judgments relating to radical medical procedures such as experimental psychosurgery 1 or kidney transplants2 or negative medical procedures such as a discontinuance of medical suppon systems. 3 In such cases it has readily been seen that the bare authority of a guardian under state statutes is not sufficient to authorize medical procedures or cessation of them. It has been agreed that specific coun authority is required, and probably that of a court exercising equity jurisdiction.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health Law
    Mental Health Law January 2017 Syllabus Professor Tovino University of Houston Law Center Health Law and Policy Institute ______________________________________________________________________ General Course Information Course: Mental Health Law Course No.: 5297 Section No.: 25140 Credits: 2 Classroom: TBD Dates: January 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, and 10, 2017 Time: 9:00 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. Instructor: Stacey A. Tovino, JD, PhD E-mail: [email protected] Course Description and Objectives This course will examine a variety of civil and administrative issues pertaining to mental health care access, quality, liability, and finance. Particular attention will be given to federal and state mental health parity law and mandatory mental health and substance use disorder law; federal and state laws protecting the confidentiality of mental health and substance use disorder records; federal and state regulation of interventions such as restraint, seclusion, electroconvulsive therapy, and psychosurgery; state law scope of practice issues for mental health professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, social workers, advance nurse practitioners, and counselors; state regulation of involuntary inpatient and outpatient commitment; and civil liability and/or professional discipline for negligent failure to diagnose, negligent misdiagnosis, negligent treatment, negligent referral, sexual and romantic relationships with patients, patient injury following elopement, and patient suicide. Course Materials There are no required or recommended casebooks. All of our course materials, including a variety of federal and state statutes, regulations, and judicial opinions, are on TWEN. Course materials are listed below under Course Schedule. Course Evaluation I will base 100% of your final grade on one anonymous, closed-book, two-hour, final examination, which shall include fifty multiple-choice questions.
    [Show full text]
  • A Guide for Implementing Assisted Outpatient Treatment
    A Guide for Implementing Assisted Outpatient Treatment JUNE 2012 Created for mental health professionals to implement assisted outpatient treatment for individuals with severe mental illness 1 “A Guide for Implementing Assisted Outpatient Treatment” © 2012 by the Treatment Advocacy Center Written by Rosanna Esposito, Jeffrey Geller and Kristina Ragosta The Treatment Advocacy Center is a national nonprofit organization dedicated to eliminating barriers to the timely and effective treatment of severe mental illness. The organization promotes laws, policies and practices for the delivery of psychiatric care and supports the development of innovative treatments for and research into the causes of severe and persistent psychiatric illnesses, such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Comments on Assisted Outpatient Treatment FROM A PARTICIPANT I never knew I could feel so well. FROM A PARENT Without AOT, my son would either be in jail or dead … It alone has made a difference for him by helping him to stay on his meds. FROM A JUDGE [Assisted outpatient treatment] has provided life-saving services to individuals suffering from mental illness … and has reduced the need for action by law enforcement, medical emergency personnel, and the Courts, and lessens the trauma and anguish of family and friends. FROM A MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONAL The clients involved in [AOT] were given the opportunity to recover at home with the support of their families and, by doing so, avoided being sent to the state hospital … The successes achieved by these individuals are inspiring; watching these people move forward in their lives was one of the most rewarding experiences of my career. For additional testimonials please see pages 53-56.
    [Show full text]
  • The Cuckoo's Nest: an Examination of the National Commission Report on Psychosurgery Steven C
    Hofstra Law Review Volume 6 | Issue 4 Article 3 1978 Return to the Cuckoo's Nest: An Examination of the National Commission Report on Psychosurgery Steven C. Spronz Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr Recommended Citation Spronz, Steven C. (1978) "Return to the Cuckoo's Nest: An Examination of the National Commission Report on Psychosurgery," Hofstra Law Review: Vol. 6: Iss. 4, Article 3. Available at: http://scholarlycommons.law.hofstra.edu/hlr/vol6/iss4/3 This document is brought to you for free and open access by Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hofstra Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarly Commons at Hofstra Law. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Spronz: Return to the Cuckoo's Nest: An Examination of the National Commi NOTES RETURN TO THE CUCKOO'S NEST: AN EXAMINATION OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION REPORT ON PSYCHOSURGERY One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest' describes the use of psychosurgery to rid MacMurphy, an inmate-patient who chal- lenged the authority of his "keepers" in a psychiatric institution, of his allegedly violent tendencies. The operation transformed him into a human vegetable. His friend, the "Chief," another patient at the hospital, recognized that MacMurphy's life was now without meaning and mercifully suffocated him. The author's indictment of abuses in mental institutions was published in 1962, when the practice of psychosurgery was waning in the United States. 2 Cuckoo's Nest should belong to a bygone era, one replaced by an age in which more humane treatments are administered.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 8 – Civil Commitments
    GENERAL DISTRICT COURT MANUAL CIVIL COMMITMENTS Page 8-1 Chapter 8 – Civil Commitments Civil Commitments include involuntary admissions of mentally ill/intellectual disability and medical emergency temporary detention. Civil mental illness/intellectual disability proceedings and medical emergency consent proceedings may be heard by a judge of the general district or juvenile and domestic relations district court or a special justice appointed by the chief judge of the applicable judicial circuit. Va. Code § 37.2-803. The involuntary mental commitment process begins when a petition is filed, and alleges a person is mentally ill and in need of hospitalization. For proceedings in this chapter, whenever the term “mental illness” appears, it shall include substance abuse. Va. Code § 37.2-800. The process may begin with a referral to the localities’ Community Service Board, or may be initiated at the magistrate’s office. Some clerk’s offices will only receive paperwork after the proceedings and hearings are over, while in some offices the judges themselves may hold the hearing. These are the procedures for filing and indexing under each circumstance. Transportation of a person who is the subject of an emergency custody order, temporary detention order, and a person under an involuntary commitment order may be provided by a family member or friend, representative of the Community Services Board (CSB), or other alternative transportation provided with staff trained to provide transportation is a safe manner. No person who provides alternative transportation pursuant to these sections shall be liable to the person being transported for any civil damages for ordinary negligence in acts or omissions that result from providing such alternative transportation.
    [Show full text]
  • What Can You Do If Someone with a Serious Mental Illness Refuses Treatment? (Updated March 2014)
    _________________Treatment Advocacy Center Backgrounder______________ What Can You Do If Someone with a Serious Mental Illness Refuses Treatment? (updated March 2014) SUMMARY: Some people with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder refuse treatment. The main reason they do so is that they have no awareness of their illness and do not think that they are sick; this is called anosognosia. Some people who refuse treatment can be persuaded to accept it by patiently working with them or by offering them a reward if they do so. Others continue to refuse treatment; in such cases there are a few options which vary by state depending on the laws of that state. The most effective of these options are assisted outpatient treatment (AOT); conditional release; and mental health courts. Assisted Outpatient Treatment (AOT) AOT is a form of outpatient commitment in which mentally ill individuals are told by court order that they can live in the community as long as they follow their treatment plan, but if they do not do so, they can be involuntarily returned to the hospital. It is available in all states except Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Tennessee, and New Mexico. The criteria for being put on AOT varies somewhat by state but usually includes having had a history of not following treatment plans and becoming dangerous to self or others when not being treated. Examples of AOT are Kendra’s Law in New York and Laura’s Law in California. AOT has been shown to be effective in reducing rehospitalizations, incarcerations, victimizations, episodes of violence, and homelessness. Stettin B. An advocate’s observations on research concerning assisted outpatient treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • The Use of Conservatorships and Adult Guardianships and Other Options in the Care of the Mentally Ill in the United States
    The Use of Conservatorships and Adult Guardianships and Other Options in the Care of the Mentally Ill in the United States By: Robert Barton, Esq., Stacie Lau Esq., and Lydia L. Lockett, Esq.* Family Members as Guardians for Mentally Ill Patients World Guardianship Congress May 29, 2014, Arlington, VA TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. PREVALENCE OF MENTAL ILLNESS IN THE UNITED STATES .............................1 A. Types of Mental Illness ............................................................................................1 1. Anxiety disorders .........................................................................................2 2. Schizophrenia ...............................................................................................2 3. Dementia ......................................................................................................3 4. Eating Disorders ...........................................................................................4 5. Addiction Disorders .....................................................................................4 B. Defining Mental Illness/Incapacity ..........................................................................5 1. Daily Activities v. Communicative Ability .................................................5 2. Undue influence ...........................................................................................6 3. Isolated
    [Show full text]
  • The Law of Mental Illness
    DEVELOPMENTS IN THE LAW THE LAW OF MENTAL ILLNESS “[D]oing time in prison is particularly difficult for prisoners with men- tal illness that impairs their thinking, emotional responses, and ability to cope. They have unique needs for special programs, facilities, and extensive and varied health services. Compared to other prisoners, moreover, prisoners with mental illness also are more likely to be ex- ploited and victimized by other inmates.” HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH, ILL-EQUIPPED: U.S. PRISONS AND OFFENDERS WITH MENTAL ILLNESS 2 (2003), available at http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1003/usa1003.pdf. “[I]ndividuals with disabilities are a discrete and insular minority who have been faced with restrictions and limitations, subjected to a history of purposeful unequal treatment, and relegated to a position of political powerlessness in our society, based on characteristics that are beyond the control of such individuals and resulting from stereotypic assumptions not truly indicative of the individual ability of such indi- viduals to participate in, and contribute to, society . .” Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, Pub. L. No. 101-336, § 2(a)(7), 104 Stat. 327, 329 (codified at 42 U.S.C. § 12101 (2000)). “We as a Nation have long neglected the mentally ill . .” Remarks [of President John F. Kennedy] on Proposed Measures To Combat Mental Illness and Mental Retardation, PUB. PAPERS 137, 138 (Feb. 5, 1963). “[H]umans are composed of more than flesh and bone . [M]ental health, just as much as physical health, is a mainstay of life.” Madrid v. Gomez, 889 F. Supp. 1146, 1261 (N.D. Cal.
    [Show full text]
  • DEVELOPMENTS in MENTAL HEALTH LAW the Institute of Law, Psychiatry & Public Policy — the University of Virginia
    DEVELOPMENTS IN MENTAL HEALTH LAW The Institute of Law, Psychiatry & Public Policy — The University of Virginia Volume 35, Issue 4 Winter 2016 In This Issue: I. Updates: A. SJ 47 Joint Subcommittee Actions and Recommendations to the 2017 General Assembly Session [p. 1] Work Group #1: System Structure and Financing [p. 1] Work Group #2: Criminal Justice Diversion [p. 5] Work Group #3: Mental Health Crisis and Emergency Services [p. 6] Work Group #4: Housing [p. 7] B. Other Mental Health Related Bills in the 2017 General Assembly [p. 9] II. Article: The Case for Permanent Supportive Housing for Persons with Serious Mental Illness: Improved Lives, Reduced Costs, and Compliance with Federal Law [p.17] III. ILPPP Data Corner: Permanent Supportive Housing: Virginia Investment and Estimated State Cost Avoidance [p.23] IV. Case Law Developments [p.27] Federal Circuit Court Decisions [p.27] Virginia Court Decisions [p.33] State Court Decisions [p.33] V. Institute Programs [p.37] ______________________________________________________ 1 I. Updates A. SJ 47 Joint Subcommittee Actions and Recommendations to the 2017 General Assembly Session As noted in the last issue of DMHL, at the October 26, 2016 meeting of the SJ 47 Joint Subcommittee to Study Mental Health Services in the Commonwealth in the 21st Century the Subcommittee’s Work Groups and members appeared to move closer to adopting a shared vision of a future statewide system of mental health services, while acknowledging the significant obstacles to realizing that vision. Each Work Group chairperson set out recommendations for budget and statutory actions in the 2017 General Assembly session to support a variety of mental health reform measures.
    [Show full text]
  • Title 35 Public Health and Safety
    TITLE 35 - PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY CHAPTER 1 - ADMINISTRATION ARTICLE 1 - IN GENERAL 35-1-101. Local contributions; disposition. All monies paid to the state treasurer representing contributions by city councils, county commissioners, trustees of school districts, or other public agencies, for public health purposes, shall be set up and designated on the books of the state treasurer in a separate account, and shall be expended and disbursed upon warrants drawn by the state auditor against said account when the vouchers therefor have been approved by the department of health. 35-1-102. Sanitation of public institutions. It shall be the duty of the officers, managers, superintendents, proprietors and lessees of all hospitals, asylums, infirmaries, prisons, jails, schools, theaters, public places and public institutions to remedy any and all defects relating to the unsanitary condition of such institution, or institutions, as may be under their control, when such defects shall have been called to their attention in writing by the department of health. 35-1-103. Neglect or failure of officials to perform duty. Any member of the department of health, any county health officer, or any officer, superintendent, or principal of any city, town, county or institution named in this act, who shall fail or neglect to perform any of the duties herein required of them, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be fined in the sum of not less than one hundred dollars ($100.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00), or shall be confined in the county jail for a period of not less than six (6) months, nor more than a year, or both.
    [Show full text]