What should be justified only as an emergency measure according to the Baker Act?

The justification for using restraint and seclusion under the Baker Act is specifically because these measures are considered extreme and should only be employed when absolutely necessary for the safety of the individual or others. This reflects the intent of the Baker Act to protect individuals’ rights and dignity while also ensuring their safety during acute mental health crises.

Restraint and seclusion can lead to physical and psychological trauma, and therefore, their use is limited to circumstances where less restrictive interventions have failed or are deemed insufficient to manage an imminent risk of harm. This aligns with the standards of practice in mental health care, promoting the least restrictive options first and reserving more extreme measures for emergencies.

In contrast, voluntary admission to treatment facilities, long-term hospitalization, and outpatient therapy involve the individual’s consent and consideration of their treatment needs rather than being classified strictly as emergency responses. These options focus more on healing and recovery rather than immediate crisis management, which is why they do not qualify as emergency measures under the Baker Act.