|
1782 VETOES
To illustrate the point that the Bill has overlooked the VA hos-
pitals is the fact that these hospitals do not fit into the definition in
Section 31 (a) of "Public Facilities" or Section 33 concerning "Private
Facilities". As indicated in Section 31(a), the enumerated Public
Facilities definitely exclude VA hospitals and we believe there could
be no serious contention that the VA hospitals are "private" facil-
ities under Section 33 which must be licensed by the Department of
Mental Hygiene.
Further complicating this matter is the enactment of House Bill
558, approved March 24, 1969, which repealed Sections 19 to 41 of
Article 96˝ (Uniform Veterans Guardianship Act). Section 36 of
Article 96˝ permitted commitment direct to a VA hospital and also
permitted the recognition of commitments of mentally ill veterans
in other States. This latter provision was especially valuable as it
permitted Maryland residents who were committed in other States to
be transferred to Perry Point without the traumatic experience of
going through a second commitment.
A rather frightening aspect of the proposed Bill as far as VA
doctors are concerned is the fact that Section 21 provides severe
penalties for persons detaining patients contrary to the provisions
of the bill. Another objectionable feature of the proposed Bill is
that it provides no legal method for the VA to retain in custody a
previously committed veteran dangerous to himself or others who,
after July 1, 1969, requests his release.
The matter of this proposed Bill is a problem of great signifi-
cance to the VA and to the 500,000 veterans residing in Maryland
since it would seriously impair our program of treating and rehabili-
tating our mentally ill veterans. There are in Maryland three vet-
erans hospitals—Perry Point, Fort Howard and Loch Raven which
have a total bed capacity of 1804 patients and over 2000 employees.
The hospital at Perry Point, Maryland with a 1200 bed capacity and
1181 employees is our hospital primarily concerned with the neuro-
psychiatric treatment of mentally ill veterans.
Thank you again, Governor Mandel, for the opportunity of pre-
senting the views of the Veterans Administration concerning Senate
Bill No. 285. The VA in opposing the proposed Bill is in no sense
taking an obstructionist attitude. For years we have been in the
forefront of progressive legislation concerning the mentally ill and
would welcome the opportunity to participate in any future endeav-
ors. We regret that we were never consulted or contacted in regard
to this legislation and have had to make our appeal to you at this
late date.
We urge you to veto Senate Bill No. 285 and provide an oppor-
tunity for the Veterans Administration to work with the proponents
of this legislation so that a bill may be drafted which will permit
the VA hospitals in Maryland to continue to hospitalize and treat
our mentally ill veterans.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ Rufus H. Wilson,
Manager.
&nb | 
