An Act Concerning The Confinement Of Persons With A Psychiatric Disability By The Psychiatric Security Review Board.
Summary
HB 5465 would amend chapter 319i of the Connecticut General Statutes to clarify when the Psychiatric Security Review Board (PSRB) may confine a person with a psychiatric disability who has been found gravely disabled. The bill states that a person may not be confined solely because they are gravely disabled due to not providing for their own safety unless that person also poses an immediate danger to themselves or to others.
In practical terms, the bill narrows the circumstances under which the PSRB can use confinement for individuals with psychiatric disabilities. It appears aimed at ensuring that confinement is tied to an immediate safety risk, rather than to a broader finding of grave disability alone, and it would affect the PSRB’s authority and the rights of individuals under its jurisdiction.
Impact
The bill would amend chapter 319i of the general statutes by adding a limitation on the Psychiatric Security Review Board’s confinement authority. It would require an immediate danger to self or others before confinement may be used for a person with a psychiatric disability who is deemed gravely disabled for failing to provide for their own safety. This would likely affect PSRB decision-making, standards for confinement, and the treatment of individuals subject to psychiatric oversight in Connecticut.
Sentiment
No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or recorded support/opposition. Based on the bill text, the measure appears to be framed as a clarification of existing law and a safeguard for individuals with psychiatric disabilities, suggesting a rights-protective intent rather than a punitive one.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely the threshold for confinement: whether grave disability alone should be enough, or whether confinement should be limited to cases involving immediate danger to self or others. Advocates for civil liberties and disability rights would likely support the bill’s narrower standard, while those focused on public safety or PSRB discretion might argue that the proposed limitation could reduce flexibility in responding to vulnerable individuals who need intervention but are not yet imminently dangerous.