Obstacles in the path of mental health professionals who deal with traumatic violations of human rights

In this chapter, North American and international issues are reviewed covering the range of human rights issues, challenges, and controversies that exist in correctional mental health care. This chapter provides a brief overview of the key internationally recognized human rights that should inform the work of correctional mental health professionals. Human rights reflect a humanistic vision predicated on the foundation of human dignity, which complement the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. The human rights framework supports correctional mental health staff in their efforts to protect patients from harm and provide them the treatment they need. Human rights provide a universally acknowledged set of precepts that can be used during internal and external advocacy. Mental health professionals should not – consistent with their human rights and ethical obligations – acquiesce silently to conditions of confinement that harm prisoners and violate human rights. They are obligated not only to treat inmates with mental illness with independence and compassion, but to strive to change policies and practices that abuse inmates and violate their rights, even those that involve custodial decisions (e.g. segregation, use of force, restraints). In short, for practitioners who want improved policies and practices, human rights offers a powerful rationale and vision for a different kind of correctional mental health services. The more correctional mental health practitioners embrace and advocate for human rights, the greater the likelihood prisoners’ rights will be respected.

Download Full-text

Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals

Epidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences ◽

10.1017/s2045796016000585 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 26 (5) ◽

pp. 535-544 ◽

Cited By ~ 24

Author(s):

S. A. Kinner ◽

C. Harvey ◽

B. Hamilton ◽

L. Brophy ◽

C. Roper ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Mental Health Service ◽

Health Service ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Online Survey ◽

Service Providers ◽

Consumer Safety ◽

Mental Health Settings

Aims.There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.Methods.In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.Results.In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.Conclusions.There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

Download Full-text

The Consequences of Acting Unlawfully

International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law ◽

10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i10.144 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 1 (10) ◽

pp. 35

Author(s):

Kris Gledhill

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Public Law ◽

Fundamental Rights ◽

Self Determination ◽

Human Rights Law ◽

Mental Health Act ◽

Health Review

The Mental Health Act 1983 provides for detention and also for treatment which would otherwise be an assault. As such, it allows for interference with the fundamental rights to liberty and to self-determination. Particularly as it does so in the context of a branch of medicine which is often highly subjective, it is hardly surprising that litigation is occasionally resorted to by those affected who wish to challenge the legality of what is occurring to them.The framework for this litigation has developed, spurred on in particular by the growth of public law and human rights law. As a result, mental health professionals have to be familiar not just with the court-machinery which is central to the Mental Health Act 1983 (which provides for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine the legality of the ongoing detention of a patient, and refers the issue of the displacement of a nearest relative to the county court) but also with the courts which deal with questions of public law (in particular the Administrative Court) and the civil litigation courts.

Download Full-text

HUMAN RIGHTS OF MENTALLY ILL PATIENTS

Mental Health: Global Challenges Journal ◽

10.32437/mhgcj-2019(2).51 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 2 (2) ◽

pp. 31-35

Author(s):

Christos Iliadis ◽

Aikaterini Frantzana ◽

Aikaterini Kourkouta ◽

Petros Ouzounakis

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Human Rights ◽

United Nations ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Dynamic Process ◽

Academic Libraries ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Mentally Ill ◽

Study Material

Introduction: Mental health is the development of a person's healthy view ofthemselves and the environment in which they live, so that they can achieve thehighest degree of self-fulfillment. Purpose: The purpose of the present work is toinvestigate and highlight the rights of the mentally ill and to promote and promotethe health of these patients. Methodology: The study material consisted of articleson the topic found in Greek and international databases such as: Google Scholar,Mednet, Pubmed, Medline and the Hellenic Academic Libraries Association(HEAL-Link), using keywords: mental illness, patient rights, health professionals. Results: The rights of mental patients and their exercise in a meaningful andeffective manner is a dynamic process that encompasses the corresponding rightsand obligations of mental health professionals. An important legal effort to protectthe rights of the mentally ill is Resolution 46/119 of the United Nations GeneralAssembly on the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and Improving MentalHealth Care, adopted on 17 December 1991. Conclusions: The exercise of therights of the mentally ill requires their encouragement from mental healthprofessionals, who are essentially obliged to refrain from restrictive practices.

Download Full-text

Depictions of Mental Illness in Print Media: A Prospective National Sample

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry ◽

10.1046/j.1440-1614.2002.00998.x ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 36 (5) ◽

pp. 697-700 ◽

Cited By ~ 106

Author(s):

John Coverdale ◽

Raymond Nairn ◽

Donna Claasen

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Mental Illness ◽

Human Rights ◽

New Zealand ◽

Mental Disorders ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Print Media ◽

National Sample ◽

Diagnostic Categories

Objective: Because there are no published reports of depictions of mental illness in print media based on national samples, we set out to prospectively collect and analyse a near complete New Zealand sample of print media. Methods: A commercial clipping bureau was contracted to provide cuttings of all items with any mental health or illness aspect over a four week period. These items were analysed for potentially positive and negative depictions and how mental illness was represented within each item. An independent search for additional newspaper items concerning one prominently featured topic indicated that the rate of identification of relevant stories was at least 91%. Result: The collection consisted of six hundred print items which were most commonly news or editorial pieces (n = 562, 93.7%). Negative depictions predominated, with dangerousness to others (n = 368, 61.3%) and criminality (n = 284, 47.3%) being the most common. Positive depictions, including human rights themes, leadership and educational accomplishments occurred in 27% (n = 164) of all items. Generic mental illness terminology without reference to specific diagnostic categories was present in 47% of all items (n = 284). Conclusions: Negative depictions that predominate confirm the stereotypic understanding of mental illness that is stigmatizing. These findings underscore the challenge facing us as mental health professionals attempting to change attitudes towards mental disorders when the stereotypes are so regularly reinforced.

Download Full-text

When Ethics, Healthcare, and Human Rights Conflict: Mental Healthcare for Asylum Seekers

Cambridge Quarterly of Healthcare Ethics ◽

10.1017/s0963180102220125 ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 11 (3) ◽

pp. 304-318 ◽

Cited By ~ 7

Author(s):

Annemiek Richters

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Asylum Seekers ◽

Mental Healthcare ◽

European Countries ◽

Case Vignettes ◽

Therapeutic Protocols ◽

Western European

Mental health professionals who care for asylum seekers in Western European countries increasingly encounter problems for which standard diagnostic and therapeutic protocols and institutional healthcare policies offer no ready answers. In the following case vignettes some of these problems can be identified.

Download Full-text

A 7-year partnership between psychiatric services in Russia and the UK

Psychiatric Bulletin ◽

10.1192/pb.29.4.144 ◽

2005 ◽

Vol 29 (4) ◽

pp. 144-146 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mikhail Bakanov ◽

Roger Bloor ◽

Vasily Emptsov ◽

David Pearson

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Soviet Union ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Psychiatric Services ◽

Service Development ◽

Psychiatric Institutions ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The Uk

Historically, relationships with mental health professionals working in Russia have been difficult to sustain due to problems with access and perceived human rights infringements that existed earlier (Poloahij, 2001). This has resulted in many Russian psychiatric institutions having little opportunity to collaborate in international research or to take part in exchanges of information on service development. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been brought back into spheres of international cooperation in healthcare.

Download Full-text

Mental Health Professionals as Pawns in Oppressive Practices: A Case Example Concerning Psychologists’ Involvement in the Denial of Education Rights to Roma/Gypsy Children

Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry ◽

10.1891/152315007780493825 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 9 (1) ◽

pp. 14-24 ◽

Cited By ~ 2

Author(s):

Sonja Grover

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

Best Interests ◽

Educational Placement ◽

Intellectually Disabled ◽

The Czech Republic ◽

Educational Psychologists ◽

European Court

This article examines a 2006 European Court of Human Rights judgment concerning educational discrimination against Roma children in the Czech Republic and the involvement of educational psychologists in the case. The court held the school to be the proper final arbiter on the question of the best interests of the child regarding educational placement. Based largely on culturally biased psychological testing results, the Roma children in question were declared mentally handicapped by educational psychologists. On that basis, they were placed in a segregated school for the intellectually disabled where the curriculum was quite deficient. Despite statistical evidence of the overrepresentation of Roma children in such segregated Czech schools, and of widespread discrimination against Roma in schools and in the larger society, the court rejected the claim that the children’s right to an education had been violated. The implication for psychologists and educators internationally, to avoid becoming pawns contributing to an oppressive human rights situation, is discussed.

Download Full-text

Advocacy for the human rights of older people in the COVID pandemic and beyond: a call to mental health professionals

International Psychogeriatrics ◽

10.1017/s1041610220001076 ◽

2020 ◽

Vol 32 (10) ◽

pp. 1199-1204 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Carmelle Peisah ◽

Andrew Byrnes ◽

Israel (Issi) Doron ◽

Michael Dark ◽

Gerard Quinn

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Older People ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals

Download Full-text

Making Sense of Bournewood

International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law ◽

10.19164/ijmhcl.v1i12.163 ◽

2014 ◽

Vol 1 (12) ◽

pp. 17

Author(s):

Robert Robinson ◽

Lucy Scott-Moncrieff

Keyword(s):

Mental Health ◽

Human Rights ◽

Mental Health Professionals ◽

Health Professionals ◽

European Convention ◽

Effective Control ◽

European Court ◽

The Government ◽

High Level ◽

Article 5

The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in HL v UK has been understood by some commentators as making it unlawful, without the use of formal legal powers, to give treatment in a psychiatric hospital to a person who lacks capacity to consent and over whom the mental health professionals directly involved are exercising complete and effective control. This understanding follows from a reading of the judgment which equates complete and effective control with deprivation of liberty for the purposes of Article 5 of European Convention on Human Rights. If this interpretation is correct, the same principle would apply to people living in nursing homes who require a high level of care and supervision and who lack capacity. While the former could be formally detained in hospital (or a ‘registered establishment’) under the Mental Health Act 1983, the Act’s detention powers do not extend to other care settings.This article suggests that to understand the European Court of Human Rights' judgment in HL v UK it is necessary to take account of the unusual facts of the case. It is suggested that it does not follow from the judgment that the admission of a compliant incapacitated patient will necessarily deprive that person of liberty for the purpose of Article 5. The Government’s initial responses to the judgment fails to distinguish admissions which do engage Article 5 from those which do not. It is suggested that the Government should provide guidance to assist mental health professionals and others to make this distinction in individual cases.

Download Full-text