What not to do with a pen.

My goodness.
In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Arthur Litzau, Alleged Mentally Ill¹

Appellant Robert Arthur Litzau challenges the district court order committing him as mentally ill…

Appellant is currently 66 years old. In 1999, he was convicted of fourth-degree criminal sexual conduct. As a result, he is required to register as a predatory offender.

In June of 2003, appellant was charged with possessing an incendiary device and making terroristic threats after he threatened to “blow up” a residence and “kill as many police officers as possible.”

After appellant was evicted from his rented home in early 2008, he lived with friends or in his vehicle, but failed to advise law enforcement of his address change.

He was subsequently charged with failure to register as a predatory offender. In February 2008, law enforcement received a telephone call indicating that children reported that appellant had followed them home from school and asked them to “come with him out to the woods and stay at his cabin.”

On July 9, 2008, appellant admitted himself into the emergency room at St. Cloud Hospital when he was unable to retrieve a ballpoint pen that he had inserted through his urethra into his penis for sexual pleasure.² Doctors determined that the pen had ruptured appellant’s bladder, and, after attempts to remove the pen with forceps failed, they advised appellant that surgery would be necessary.

Appellant initially refused any form of anesthesia, telling staff that he was a “strong man” who did not want to become “addicted” to medications. Eventually, appellant consented to general anesthetic for surgical extraction of the pen.

Following his surgery, appellant repeatedly complained about the installed drains and catheter and refused antibiotics, telling staff that he would “naturally heal” if all foreign objects were removed from his body. Because he refused antibiotics, appellant’s wound became dangerously infected, and he also developed a urinary-tract infection. He claimed that hospital staff caused his infections.

A doctor wrote that appellant “has no significant insight into the seriousness of his problem nor the appropriate treatment options.”

Appellant was placed on a 72-hour hold due to a “[p]ossible history of schizophrenia” and “competency issues.” Staff reported that appellant was “tangential” and would not disclose where he was living because “he does not want the government to find him.”

He stated that he “has been abused by the government since he was 8 years old,” and that “police have beat him up.” When asked specifically what the government had done to harass him, appellant stated “conspiracy, hate crimes, terrorism, and bullying.” When a doctor later asked appellant the same question, he stated: “I can’t use my mind power to discuss these things.”

¹This is from an unpublished opinion. In the Matter of the Civil Commitment of: Robert Arthur Litzau, Alleged Mentally Ill. Cass County District Court. (Minnesota) The full text version (PDF format) is here.

² All emphasis(bolding, italics) are mine.