Creeping coercion 

At the relished risk of being called a fascist bully (bring it on!), I say it's not merely all right, but is an act of love and consummate civic duty, to "coerce" people whose drug intoxication, or overt and uncontrolled mental turmoil, so diminishes their judgement capacity that they can be reasonably deemed to be potentially a danger to themselves or others.

The coercion seeks to redeem, not to punish. In a way it is a form of custody, but without the tone of detention. The New York Civil Liberties Union and The Legal Aid Society, reject the distinction. They decry "coercion," even when applied to people who have lost the strength, will or bearings to help themselves. They cite the Constitution, which they particularly uphold when it comports with their ideology. 

These two organizations, with whose advocacy it is sometimes hard to live but always impossible to live without, oppose Mayor Eric Adams' enlightened "Compassionate Interventions Act," which would give first responders greater latitude when intervening with people who are enslaved and imperiled by their demons, as they often cry out or lash out in public.

Is shepherding tortured souls into reclamation of their personhood an act of "tough love"? Can it be codified into government policy? 

It's a humanitarian initiative, but critics seem to view the throwing of a lifeline as an electioneering stunt and publicity ploy to boost the mayor's polling numbers. They refer to characterizations of the homeless and emotionally disturbed persons as "harmful stereotypes."

It's not as though the person's sovereignty were being commandeered by the state and signed away to bureaucrats. 

The only remaining chance for the restoration of their capacity for self-determination after paralyzing mental illness often is a thorough diagnostic workup followed by supervised, long-term treatment. The word "removal" has taken on an especially ominous connotation in the contexts of unrelated federal policy. But in this context it is benign and merciful.

It is separation from pits of hell.

The terms "compliance" and "consent" must sometimes be suspended because of the exigencies of survival. When people are on the catwalk of a bridge and threaten to jump off, their intended imminent act is not an issue of the exercise of free speech. When swimmers are caught in an ocean riptide and, out of bravado or confused agitation, struggle against lifeguards trying to rescue them, their autonomy must also be preempted. 

They don't have a due-process right to appeal having been saved.

By deploying first responders and medical and social service teams, the government would not be abridging the rights of the mentally inept people in the streets and subways. It would not involve the seizure of human beings as though they were property subject to eminent domain. 

Their personalities have been reduced to biochemistry gone awry, triggering outward expression of inner turmoil. Their dignity remains inviolable, but they must recapture self-awareness through rehabilitation. The Compassionate Interventions Act must prove a pathway to fruition.

It won't be NYC's first rodeo as deliverer of mercy to afflicted folks. Remember "ThriveNYC" under former Mayor Bill de Blasio? Over $1.5 billion over five years were to be invested in providing similar outreach as the Compassionate Interventions Act. It was a boondoggle. A bust. And, some postulate, a crime.

The phrase "hell is paved with good intentions" might as well be the motto, if not the mission, of some federal laws that theoretically protect us. The federal HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act), which has been around almost 30 years, has enshrined the privacy rights of patients, even if it kills them. 

Providers cannot share confidential information about a patient with family members or anyone else unless the patient has provided prior approval in writing. In most cases that makes sense. But there should be flexibility. Too bad common sense can't be legislated.

Most patients are never tested for mental acuity, even when it is known to be shattered or gravely compromised. Nonetheless, there are no restrictions on their decision-making authority, and they can exclude family members and others who may have knowledge critical to the patient's well-being from input that might radically improve the prognosis or even save their lives. 

Corporate medicine is more concerned with crossing T’s and dotting I’s, not to run afoul of HIPAA, even if it dooms the patient to complete failure to thrive.

Because of HIPAA's privacy fetish stranglehold, it is difficult to get a mentally incompetent person recognized as such under the law. I know of a case of a patient in a psychiatric facility who refused to eat anything because he was convinced that the CIA was bugging all his food. 

Court orders were required to force feed him.

The HIPAA laws and its constraints, which prevent quick and effective intercession to liberate people from their wretched lives, seemingly checkmated emotional disturbance, substance abuse and homelessness, is red tape that turns out to be a shroud. 

Circling back to New York City affairs, (and it is indeed a circle, since the same touted initiatives rarely seem to go anywhere and end up where they started, minus the tax dollars), let's consider the MTA’s latest in an ongoing series of phony improvements in customer service: the "contactless" OMNY.

MTA Chair and CEO Janno Lieber hailed it as a "much more dynamic system" than MetroCards, (which, like the former subway tokens, will become historic artistic relics) and will come with more discounts and promotions as well as be more affordable to frequent commuters. OMNY has been around for a while but will soon be the only payment option, as MetroCards are being phased out.

OMNY is the New World Screwworm of public transportation.

The fare is recorded by the tapping of one's phone. But there have been many complaints of multiple deductions from commuters' bank accounts for single fares, and their having to wait upwards of a half hour on the phone for customer service. 

They will now have a new task built into every day: a bank account muster. You can bet that sooner or later, there will be errors, and never in your favor.

And recircling back to the right of privacy: commuters will, by use of OMNY, be playing right into the hands of the surveillance state. More details of our lives will be stored in government memory banks.

To be tapped by whom, when and what for?