---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: August Baker <august@philosophypodcasts.org>
Date: Mon, Feb 10, 2025 at 8:15 PM
Subject: Fwd: Human Rights Complaint
To: <DMHOmbudsman@mass.gov>, <dmhinfo@massmail.state.ma.us>, <andrea.keddie@massmail.state.ma.us>
Dear Ombudsman and Ms. Keddie,
I sent this email yesterday to three individuals who may be the Person in Charge for the IPU unit at Corrigan MHC. I received no response from either of them, and from prior contact with DMH personnel, I do not expect even an acknowledgment that the email was received. The one exception is Mr. Garcia, who is quite responsive and a pleasure to work with!
The problem with this, though, is that one wonders, having received no response, whether anything will happen. Regarding the outdoors issue, I first contacted Mr. Weiner in October 2024! He never replied in any way! That is discouraging, but I am trying again to raise awareness of the issue.
Ms Keddie, could you please provide my complaint to Ms. Plasse (or whomever is now in her position). I have tried previously to contact the head of Corrigan MHC, but I believe that position is currently vacant. (The website says it is still Ms. Hall).
In addition to the lack of access to the outdoors, I have another set of inquiries (discussed on my podcast) into Corrigan IPU. For example, how did Corrigan IPU end up with sixteen (and often fewer) patients, while maintaining a staff of perhaps twenty professionals and another 20 or more non-professional staff? Even Ms. Hazard, who is in charge of Communications at DMH will not acknowledge my concerns. If either of you could assure me that my Complaint has found its way to someone who will take it seriously, I would be so very grateful. (And I wouldn't have to keep sending this to other people!)
Sincerely,
August Baker, PhD
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: August Baker <august@philosophypodcasts.org>
Date: Sun, Feb 9, 2025 at 7:27 PM
Subject: Human Rights Complaint
To: <lawrence.weiner@mass.gov>, <jose.afonso@mass.gov>, Maxwell.I.Mayer@mass.gov <Maxwell.I.Mayer@mass.gov>
Dear Mr. Weiner, Dr. Mayer, and Dr. Afonso,
I intend this email to constitute a complaint under 104 CMR, § 32. My complaint relates to a longstanding condition at the Acute Inpatient Unit (IPU) at Corrigan Mental Health Center ("Corrigan"). I believe this condition is either dangerous, illegal, or inhumane.
The condition relates to all Corrigan IPU patients other than those who are young, physically fit, and relatively social (the "Youthful" patients). For example, it relates to those patients who are catatonic, obese, elderly, or who suffer from a physical handicap or a mental disorder such as social anxiety or claustrophobia (the "Compromised" patients).
Corrigan staff represent that the patients have four times that they get to go outside. But there seems to be little or no concern or recognition that only the Youthful patients take part in these breaks. The Compromised Patients can spend days, weeks, and even years without ever accessing the outdoors.
I first noticed this with patient D, who was an elderly man with significant social anxiety. In speaking with him, his favorite moments were the times he would take walks with his sister and look at flowers. Yet as a resident at Corrigan IPU, he was too socially anxious to go to lunch, much less to go with the group for outdoors. I took it upon myself to recommend that he go. I assured him that I would go with him and stay with him the entire time. I did that twice with him, and he enjoyed it significantly.
But for my intervention however, he would never have gone outside. For practical purposes, for this patient to go outside, it is not sufficient to simply post outdoors times. Given his complex condition, and given the physical plant at Corrigan, for practical purposes, he would not have gone outside at all during his time there but for a person encouraging him and following through.
Patient P has been a resident for perhaps two years. I took her outside on three different occasions. Some staff were happily shocked that I was able to do this. Most of the nursing staff, however, were highly resistant to my initiative. On one occasion, I told them I needed to take the elevator down with P. They said they knew this, but P and I waited and waited. After about 10 minutes, I started approaching MHCs. One said she could not help because she was on checks. Another said he "wasn't working today." The charge nurse refused to make eye contact. When a different charge nurse replaced the first one, the new charge nurse said they didn't have the staff to allow P to access the outdoors. I asked if I could take P down in the elevator myself, and I was told I could not.
What about the MHCs that I had initially told I wanted to take P down by the elevator (and who left us stranded)? After giving up, I went down to the courtyard, and all three MHCs were sitting and chatting and having a great time. There were only two patients in the yard. The MHCs were disingenuous. They knew I had asked them to go down in the elevator with P, but they chose to ignore the request.
On a third occasion, I took P down, and a nurse on the courtyard claimed that there had been a problem with P accessing the courtyard. The charge nurse said that he had heard there was a problem. I said there was no problem. P had needed to steady herself. Essentially, there is a great deal of resistance to taking Frail patients outside.
Danielle Keogh was not supportive of my efforts in this regard. The incident when I could not take P down was a turning point in my relationship with her. She spent significant effort trying to force me into a certain mold of what she thought I should be doing. I was emotional about not being able to take P down. Ms. Keogh interpreted this as "dysregulation." On my last day before winter holiday, she arranged a "gotcha" powerplay meeting. The result of this was that I had to withdraw from my masters program entirely.
I provide these examples to show you some of the color. But there were many patients who I would never even attempt to take down. Patient L, who was catatonic, probably never accessed the outdoors.
Accessing the outdoors is a human right for all detainees. Under Massachusetts law, access to the outdoors has to be either individual or group access. I do not believe that Corrigan offers individual access. Other psychiatric hospitals, such as Southcoast Behavioral, are built so that it is easy to access the outdoors. With Corrigan, it has to be done in a group and down two dark, steep staircases. It is a forbidding prospect. I understand that that is a physical plant issue, but if outdoor access is not provided, it is necessary that Corrigan have a plan for why this is not possible, and that plan has to be approved by DMH.
In October, I asked Mr. Weiner for a copy of this plan. I offered to help him revisit it. I never heard back from him, and Danielle Keogh provided no support for my initiative. She single handedly set my social work career back years.
Regardless, something good I hope can come from my time there. I hope that this Complaint will serve to alert staff to the problem of outdoors access. Not being able to access the outdoors is considered a form of torture. There are important efforts to ensure that penitentiaries provide outdoor time to their inmates. The law--and common humanity--requires the same opportunity be provided to residents of psychiatric IPUs.
Sincerely,
August Baker, PhD