scholarly journals Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia

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


2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 83-87 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. M. Doherty ◽  
F. Jabbar ◽  
B. D. Kelly

ObjectivesThe Mental Health Act 2001 was implemented in 2006 to bring Ireland into line with international practice and United Nations Conventions on Human Rights. Previous studies have reported some practical difficulties for the professionals involved. We wished to examine the experiences of nursing staff and the impact of the Act on clinical nursing practice since its implementation.MethodThis cross-sectional survey was conducted by questionnaire. It contained questions examining training in and attitudes to the Act, and any resultant changes in nursing practise.ResultsA total of 317 questionnaires were returned. Of the nurses, 92% reported having received training in the Act, and 56% of nursing staff believed that their workload had increased as a result of the change in legislation. Of those who made a comment, 76.5% were negative, with increased paper work, lack of clarity and an excessive focus on legalities being the most common difficulties reported.ConclusionsNursing staff have shown mixed attitudes to the Mental Health Act 2001, but many of the difficulties encountered are similar to those experienced by other professionals.


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.


BJPsych Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Syeda Ferhana Akther ◽  
Emma Molyneaux ◽  
Ruth Stuart ◽  
Sonia Johnson ◽  
Alan Simpson ◽  
...  

Background Understanding patient experiences of detention under mental health legislation is crucial to efforts to reform policy and practice. Aims To synthesise qualitative evidence on patients' experiences of assessment and detention under mental health legislation. Method Five bibliographic databases were searched, supplemented by reference list screening and citation tracking. Studies were included if they reported on patient experiences of assessment or detention under mental health legislation; reported on patients aged 18 years or older; collected data using qualitative methods; and were reported in peer-reviewed journals. Findings were analysed and synthesised using thematic synthesis. Results The review included 56 papers. Themes were generally consistent across studies and related to information and involvement in care, the environment and relationships with staff, as well as the impact of detention on feelings of self-worth and emotional state. The emotional impact of detention and views of its appropriateness varied, but a frequent theme was fear and distress during detention, including in relation to the use of force and restraint. Where staff were perceived as striving to form caring and collaborative relationships with patients despite the coercive nature of treatment, and when clear information was delivered, the negative impact of involuntary care seemed to be reduced. Conclusions Findings suggest that involuntary in-patient care is often frightening and distressing, but certain factors were identified that can help reduce negative experiences. Coproduction models may be fruitful in developing new ways of working on in-patient wards that provide more voice to patients and staff, and physical and social environments that are more conducive to recovery. Declaration of interest None.


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>


Author(s):  
Peter Kinderman

From an academic clinical psychological perspective, mental health problems are seen as existing on a number of continua with normal functioning, rather than being explicable in terms of categorical diagnoses. Clinical Psychologists use clinical case formulations in their professional practice and are critical of the validity and utility of diagnosis. Psychologists also see mental health problems as stemming from disturbances in psychological processes. In turn, these processes may be disrupted by a variety of causes – biological, social and psychological. Nevertheless, we see disturbance or impairment of such psychological processes as the central issue in mental ill health.<br /><br />Mental health legislation should therefore reflect these perspectives in terms of the criteria for compulsory treatment and in terms of the procedures and practices governing care.<br /><br />To an extent this is welcome in the Government’s current proposals for mental health legislative reform. A basis of compulsion based on criteria rather than diagnosis is proposed, as are care plans rather than diagnosis and treatment. Clinical psychology, however, would go further. Since there seem to be differences between ‘well’ and ‘ill’ in terms only of the degree and nature of the disturbance of psychological process and the impact on functioning, this speaks to the nature of<br />‘unsoundness of mind’. Clinical psychologists contend that it follows that mental health legislation is appropriate and necessary only if people are impaired in their judgement to the extent of being unable to make valid decisions for themselves.<br />It has been proposed that Clinical Psychologists could act as ‘clinical supervisors’ (the term which is to replace ‘responsible medical officers’). If, indeed, mental ill health is the disturbance of complex, inter-related psychological processes, it makes perfect sense to employ psychologists to coordinate care and decision-making. Clinical psychologists are ready to take their place as partners with lawyers and psychiatrists.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document