Mark C. Joyce, Esq., is managing attorney for Disability Rights Maine.

A recent op-ed about Maine’s Progressive Treatment Program (PTP) statute raises (“Disability rights advocacy must never overlook the individual’s needs,” March 16) concerns about the role of disability rights advocacy in cases involving court-ordered mental health treatment.

While the author acknowledges the important role advocacy organizations play in protecting the rights of people with disabilities, the piece ultimately presents an incomplete picture of both the legal issues involved and the work organizations like Disability Rights Maine (DRM) actually do.  The op-ed raises important questions about mental health treatment, civil liberties and the role of disability rights advocacy.

On one point, there should be broad agreement: people with serious mental health conditions deserve access to effective, appropriate treatment that supports their ability to live safely and successfully in their communities. 

Disability Rights Maine (DRM) shares that goal. Our work involves advocating for individuals with mental illness to obtain the care they are entitled to but are often denied. We regularly represent people whose referrals for services are rejected, whose clinically necessary treatment is delayed or unavailable, or whose providers attempt to terminate services prematurely. In an underfunded system layered with administrative barriers, many people would simply go without the treatment they want and need without DRM’s advocacy.

The op-ed says disability rights advocacy reflects an “increasingly rigid opposition to involuntary treatment.” That characterization misses a critical point. The legal question is not whether involuntary treatment may ever occur. Courts have long recognized that, in certain circumstances, the state may have what is known as a “compelling state interest” that justifies ordering treatment over a person’s objection. The central issue is whether the process used to impose such treatment meets constitutional standards. When someone’s liberty is at stake, those safeguards are not abstract technicalities — they are fundamental protections.

There are also important system-level implications. Maine’s mental health system operates with limited resources, including specialized services such as Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) teams that are often components of PTP orders. Ensuring that legal standards are applied correctly helps guarantee that these intensive services are directed to individuals who truly need them, rather than being diverted through a process that does not adequately evaluate eligibility.

The op-ed also argues that raising legal concerns about PTP orders’ risks, ignoring successful outcomes or elevating ideology over lived experience. But protecting constitutional rights and ensuring that treatment systems function properly are not ideological exercises. They are necessary parts of building a system that is both effective and accountable. A treatment framework should be evaluated not only by individual outcomes, but also by whether it operates safely, lawfully and consistently across the system.

Similarly, the claim that disability rights advocacy offers no constructive alternatives overlooks the substantial work DRM has done for nearly five decades to improve how mental health services are delivered within existing legal frameworks.

For example, in 2019 DRM conducted a death investigation involving an individual who received services under a PTP order. Following that investigation, DRM issued recommendations to the state of Maine focused on strengthening oversight of PTP treatment plans and ensuring that community providers participating in those plans are complying with required clinical, ethical and regulatory standards.

These recommendations reflect a broader point: effective mental health policy requires not only legal authority but also accountability and system integrity. Court-ordered treatment plans depend on community providers to deliver the services they promise. Without adequate oversight and resources, the legal structure alone cannot ensure safe or effective care.

Mental health policy debates are often framed as a stark choice between civil liberties and treatment. In reality, the goal should be a system that respects both. People with mental illness deserve access to high-quality services, meaningful due process protections and a system that is reliable and transparent.

Ensuring those protections does not abandon people in need of care. Rather, it helps build a mental health system that is both humane and trustworthy — one capable of supporting recovery while respecting the rights of the people it serves.