Mental health legislation and human rights in England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland

2011 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 439-454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan D. Kelly
2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (17) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Anselm Eldergill

<p>This article examines the Mental Health Act 2001, which is now the main piece of mental health legislation in the Republic of Ireland. The new Mental Health Tribunal system came into force on 1 November 2006, and the Act is now fully in force. The article is being published in two parts. This part deals with the new admission, detention, leave and transfer provisions. The second part, in the next issue of the Journal, examines the new safeguards: the Commission and the tribunals, and the consent to treatment procedures.</p>


Author(s):  
Anselm Eldergill

<p>This is the second of two articles examining the Mental Health Act 2001, the main piece of mental health legislation in the Republic of Ireland. The first article, published in the previous edition of the journal, dealt with the new admission, detention, leave and transfer provisions2. This concluding article examines the new safeguards: the Mental Health Commission and the new tribunal and consent to treatment procedures.</p><p><br />Contents<br />§1 Consent to treatment<br />§2 Mental Health Commission<br />§3 Mental Health Tribunals<br />§4 Concluding remarks</p>


Author(s):  
Lisa Forsberg

Anti-libidinal interventions (ALIs) are a type of crime-preventing neurointervention (CPN) already in use in many jurisdictions. This chapter examines different types of legal regimes under which ALIs might be provided to sex offenders. The types of legal regimes examined are dedicated statutes that directly provide for ALI use, consensual ALI provision under general medical law principles, mental health legislation providing for ALI use (exemplified by the mental health regime in England and Wales), and European human rights law as it pertains to ALI provision. The chapter considers what we might learn from ALIs in respect of likely or possible arrangements for the provision of other CPNs, and draws attention to some ethical issues raised by each of these types of regime, worth keeping in mind when considering arrangements for CPN provision.


2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (03) ◽  
pp. 68-70
Author(s):  
J. Maphisa Maphisa

The Mental Disorders Act of 1969 is the primary legislation relating to mental health in Botswana. Despite the country not being a signatory to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, its Act has a self-rated score of four out of five on compliance to human rights covenants. However, it can be argued that the Act does not adequately espouse a human rights- and patient-centred approach to legislation. It is hoped that ongoing efforts to revise the Act will address the limitations discussed in this article.


2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 38-40
Author(s):  
Kenneth C. Kirkby ◽  
Scott Henderson

Australia has a generally progressive approach to mental health law, reflective of international trends in human rights. Responsibility for most legislation is vested in the six States and two Territories, a total of eight jurisdictions, such that at any given time several new mental health acts are in preparation. In addition there is a model mental health act that promotes common standards. Transfer of orders between jurisdictions relies on Memoranda of Understanding between them, and is patchy. State and Territory legislation is generally cognisant of international treaty obligations, which are themselves the preserve of the Federal Parliament and legislature. UK legislation has had a key influence in Australia, the 1959 Mental Health Act in particular, with its strong emphasis on voluntary hospitalisation, prefacing deinstitutionalisation.


2020 ◽  
Vol 73 ◽  
pp. 101634 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neeraj S. Gill ◽  
Andrew Amos ◽  
Hassan Muhsen ◽  
Joshua Hatton ◽  
Charuka Ekanayake ◽  
...  

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 15-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Datta ◽  
Justin Frewen

This article provides a brief overview of the legislation that has been enacted in Ireland with respect to mental health, in particular the 2001 Mental Health Act. Although that Act was a positive step towards developing an Irish mental health service that protects the human rights of service users, a number of concerns remain, including issues related to consent and capacity, involuntary out-patient treatment and admission, the adversarial nature and timing of tribunals, and the lack of safeguards for voluntary patients.


2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Lord Patel Of Bradford ◽  
Chris Heginbotham

<p>England now has revised mental health legislation following the passage of a mental health Bill through both Houses of Parliament following protracted discussions over seven years. The Mental Health Bill 2006, amending the Mental Health Act 1983, eventually received Royal Assent on 19 July 2007. There is much that could be said about the new Act, which makes a number of important changes to the present legislation. These changes include a new single definition of mental disorder; the abolition of the so-called ‘treatability test’; and the extension of compulsion into the community through a supervised community treatment order.</p>


2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Cronin ◽  
P. Gouda ◽  
C. McDonald ◽  
B. Hallahan

ObjectivesTo describe similarities and differences in mental health legislation between five jurisdictions: the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), and Victoria (Australia).MethodsAn in-depth examination was undertaken focussing on the process of involuntary admission, review of Admission Orders and the legal processes in relation to treatment in the absence of patient consent in each of the five jurisdictions of interest.ResultsAll jurisdictions permit the detention of a patient if they have a mental disorder although the definition of mental disorder varies between jurisdictions. Several additional differences exist between the five jurisdictions, including the duration of admission prior to independent review of involuntary detention and the role of supported decision making.ConclusionsAcross the five jurisdictions examined, largely similar procedures for admission, detention and treatment of involuntary patients are employed, reflecting adherence with international standards and incorporation of human rights-based principles. Differences exist in relation to the criteria to define mental disorder, the occurrence of automatic review hearings in a timely fashion after a patient is involuntarily admitted and the role for supported decision making under mental health legislation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document