News   May 30, 2024
 421     0 
News   May 30, 2024
 1K     2 
News   May 30, 2024
 550     0 

Premier Doug Ford's Ontario

Apparently the Ford gov't is set to announce 1.2B in new funding over 3 years for Colleges and Universities.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...cle_088bc444-d1ab-11ee-bfc5-573a11378658.html (behind paywall)

This is about 1/2 of the increase recommended by the gov'ts own expert panel.

The panel wasn't making an absurd ask; but did make a fulsome ask.

That said, this will leave some unis and colleges in bad financial shape, I would expect some bankruptcies absent further funding/intervention.

This is particularly true, because apparently the gov't intends to extend its domestic student tuition freeze for 3 more years.

I take no issue w/that, but it needs to be offset by appropriate funding.

Some shakeups are coming.
 
In Ontario, there are 2 criteria for involuntary admission: Box A or B. Roughly speaking, A is danger to yourself and others, B is there is risk of mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment. However, as I understand, typically there is usually a time-limit to ensure there is appropriate review and if patient should still be held against their will. I wonder if her discharge had something to do with the length of time being held.

The (what I assume is) the final discharge note:
View attachment 542477
This alone seems to be in conflict with the criteria above.

Something is amiss and I'm going to ask around about this...
Circling back on this...

If a patient in Canada isn't going to commit imminent harm to oneself and/or others then it's easier to keep them involuntary. Otherwise you have to prove mental/physical deterioration plus the patient being incapable (box B, i.e. not being able to see consequences of actions). However, if treatment is working, it becomes hard(er) to prove that they are going to cause (immediate) harm, even if they have done so in the past.

As an interesting side note, I asked acquaintances stateside who claimed you could commit an apple if you wanted. It seems Canada focuses more on patient rights (whether it works effectively, I am not sure) and here we are. As a patient, you are (moreso) given the right to make bad decisions (and end up in jail etc). I presume finding the right balance is quite challenging.
 
A sad case indeed but certainly not unheard of. The somewhat unique circumstances here seems to be the 'day and night' pattern of behavior dependent on her medication.

In Ontario, there are 2 criteria for involuntary admission: Box A or B. Roughly speaking, A is danger to yourself and others, B is there is risk of mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment. However, as I understand, typically there is usually a time-limit to ensure there is appropriate review and if patient should still be held against their will. I wonder if her discharge had something to do with the length of time being held.

To be clear, under the Mental Health Act, involuntary admission is either a medical or judicial decision. The authority in relation to for a physician, JP or police regarding a person who a danger to themselves or other (along with other conditions) is for involuntary assessment.

The philosophical conflict is between personal sovereignty and social intervention. Over the past number of years, Ontario has closed many psychiatric institutions and returned hundreds of former involuntary patients to the community. The promised community support mechanisms were either not put in place or have been whittled back in the intervening years.

Regardless, in this case, it seems that long-term involuntary admission, regardless of her mental state at any given time or medication status, would not be appropriate unless we want to either return to the bad old days, or create a situation where the State holds her down and forces medication into her.
 
Last edited:
Regardless, in this case, it seems that long-term involuntary admission, regardless of her mental state at any given time or medication status, would not be appropriate unless we want to either return to the bad old days, or create a situation where the State holds her down and forces medication into her.

Given that the woman in question has, without dispute, violently assaulted at least 2 people while in a mentally incapacitated state, induced by her failure to stay on medication; the current regime is 'The Bad New Days'.

I'm not in favour of widespread institutionalization. There's little question we used to overdo it, at the expense of people's liberty and dignity.

But there has to be a happy medium where we'll give people a chance to prove they can be responsible, and insofar as they cause minimal or no harm; we let them be...........but if they cause harm.......we absolutely consider some form of extended, compulsory care, which absolutely, should be reviewable, and should be mandated for review periodically, to ensure we don't return to the old days, and we go only so far as necessary, to provide public and personal safety.
 
Last edited:
Given that the woman in question has, without dispute, violently assaulted at least 2 people while in a mentally incapacitated state, induced by her failure to stay on medication; the current regime is 'The Bad New Days'.

I'm not in favour of widespread institutionalization. There's little question we used to overdo it, at the expense of people's liberty and dignity.

But there has to be a happy medium where we'll give people a chance to prove they can be responsible, and insofar as they cause minimal or no harm; we let them be...........but if they cause harm.......we absolutely consider some form of extended, compulsory care, which absolutely, should be reviewable, and should be mandated for review periodically, to ensure we don't return to the old days, and we go only so far as necessary, to provide public and personal safety.
Ya, I don't know what the answer is in situations like this. The criminal justice system is not built to properly handle it and I'm not convinced the medical system is completely willing to. The 'day-and-night' aspect is challenging, and I don't know enough about bi-polar disorders to know if the stark contrast is common. If we institutionalize her, she takes her meds and is fine, so we let her go, then she stops. Rinse, repeat. Given her history, do we continue to institutionalize, even though she is 'fine', knowing from history that she will regress. A medical review board, considering only medical matters, will say no. A judicial order might say otherwise but the courts rely on medical advice.
 
Apparently the Ford gov't is set to announce 1.2B in new funding over 3 years for Colleges and Universities.

https://www.thestar.com/politics/pr...cle_088bc444-d1ab-11ee-bfc5-573a11378658.html (behind paywall)

This is about 1/2 of the increase recommended by the gov'ts own expert panel.

The panel wasn't making an absurd ask; but did make a fulsome ask.

That said, this will leave some unis and colleges in bad financial shape, I would expect some bankruptcies absent further funding/intervention.

This is particularly true, because apparently the gov't intends to extend its domestic student tuition freeze for 3 more years.

I take no issue w/that, but it needs to be offset by appropriate funding.

Some shakeups are coming.
This begs the question: why did the government only provide half of the funding that their own expert panel recommended?
 
This begs the question: why did the government only provide half of the funding that their own expert panel recommended?

I suspect he will cry poor and demand that the Federal Government come to the table with money since this is a problem of their own making.

Typical Ford playbook.. blame the feds and ask for money.
 
Here we go again... https://bnnbreaking.com/world/canad...lasma-donations-igniting-public-health-debate

In a groundbreaking move, the Ontario government has signaled its acceptance of compensated blood plasma donations, a decision that paves the way for Spanish pharmaceutical giant Grifols to open its first plasma donation center in Whitby, Ontario. This initiative, set to expand across the province, challenges existing bans in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia against paying donors. The collaboration between Grifols and Canadian Blood Services (CBS) introduces a model where donors receive compensation, stirring controversy over the potential implications for the country's voluntary blood donation framework.
 
Here we go again... https://bnnbreaking.com/world/canad...lasma-donations-igniting-public-health-debate

In a groundbreaking move, the Ontario government has signaled its acceptance of compensated blood plasma donations, a decision that paves the way for Spanish pharmaceutical giant Grifols to open its first plasma donation center in Whitby, Ontario. This initiative, set to expand across the province, challenges existing bans in Ontario, Quebec, and British Columbia against paying donors. The collaboration between Grifols and Canadian Blood Services (CBS) introduces a model where donors receive compensation, stirring controversy over the potential implications for the country's voluntary blood donation framework.

Once you start down this path, you undermine the established system completely.

You take something that was comparatively low cost and make it more expensive; at public expense; for no additional gain.

Wrong-headed move.
 

Back
Top