scholarly journals Race equality, human rights and mental health legislation: Recent developments in England and Wales

2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Lord Patel Of Bradford ◽  
Chris Heginbotham
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Recent Developments ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

<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>

New World of Mental Health Legislation England and Wales David Jolley and Reinhard Heun

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
D. Jolley ◽  
R. Heun
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
List Type ◽  
Type Number ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Use Of Resources ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

After eight years of tortured negotiations between government, professional psychiatrists and lay pressure groups, England and Wales will begin to use new Mental Health Legislation November 2008. This will not be a new Mental Health Act, but a substantial modification of the 1983 act. There are nine key changes:1.A single definition of mental disorder: ‘any disorder of mind or brain’.2.Criteria for compulsion: ‘appropriate medical treatment’ test.3.Age-appropriate services: special arrangements for under 18 years.4.Professional roles: approved clinicians and responsible clinicians (non-medical).5.Nearest relative: recognises Civil Partnerships, allows displacement.6.Supervised Community Treatment Orders.7.Mental health Review Tribunal: unified.8.Advocacy: Independent Mental Health Advocates.9.ECT: new safeguards.The Code of Practice identifies five key principles:1.Purpose - to minimise adverse effects of Mental Disorder.2.Least Restriction.3.Respect - diverse needs, values and circumstances.4.Participation - involving patient in planning, developing and reviewing treatment and care.5.Effectiveness, efficiency and equity - optimal use of resources.Earlier drafts had been described as: ‘little more than a Public Oder Bill dressed up as Mental Health legislation’; ‘ethically unworkable and practically unworkable’. Much of the dissent related to suggestions that people with Personality Disorder behaving in a dangerous or antisocial way should be subject to compulsory detention. Fears included breach of liberties and Human Rights and transformation of Mental Health Services disadvantaging people with major mental illnesses.

scholarly journals A comparison of mental health legislation in five developed countries: a narrative review

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Cronin ◽  
P. Gouda ◽  
C. McDonald ◽  
B. Hallahan
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Developed Countries ◽  
International Standards ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Patient Consent ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Health Legislation

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.

scholarly journals Dignity, human rights and the limits of mental health legislation

2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan D. Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Mental Health Policy ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Involuntary Admission ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Social And Economic Rights

A right is an entitlement that one may legally or morally claim. Human rights are of particular importance in mental health care owing to the existence of laws that permit involuntary admission and treatment under certain circumstances, and compelling evidence of persistent social exclusion of some individuals with mental disorder. Ireland’s mental health legislation, which is currently under review, meets most international human rights standards in areas of traditional concern (involuntary admission and treatment) but not in other areas (especially social and economic rights). These deficits would be addressed, at least in part, by replacing the principle of ‘best interests’ with the principle of ‘dignity’ as the over-arching principle in Irish mental health legislation. Such a change would help ensure that decisions made under the legislation actively facilitate individuals with mental disorder to exercise their capabilities, help promote human rights and protect dignity. Even following such a reform, however, it is neither practical nor realistic to expect mental health legislation alone to protect and promote all of the broader rights of individuals with mental disorder, especially social and economic rights. Some rights are better protected, and some needs better met, through social policy, mental health policy and broader societal awareness and reform.

scholarly journals Community treatment orders – a bridge too far?

1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (11) ◽  
pp. 644-646 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Moncrieff ◽  
Marceleno Smyth
Keyword(s):  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
The Media ◽  
The Government ◽  
Health Legislation ◽  
Treatment Order ◽  
Community Treatment Order

Compulsory treatment in the community is high on the agenda in the current review of mental health legislation and the government has already announced its intention to introduce a ‘community treatment order’ (CTO; Department of Health, 1998). Concern about the implications of community care has been gathering momentum over the last decade, spurred on by tragedies such as those involving Ben Silcock and Christopher Clunis in the early 1990s. The notion that community care has failed has taken deep root with the media and the government (Department of Health, 1998). This is despite the lack of any evidence to suggest that mental illness is less effectively treated (Johnstone et al, 1991; Anderson et al, 1993) or that violence attributable to the mentally ill is rising (Taylor & Gunn, 1999). It also indicates a tendency to ignore the fact that patients prefer to live in the community (Tyrer, 1998). Psychiatrists, who are increasingly implicated in this purported failure of care, feel besieged. In such a climate, the promise of more power is understandably attractive. However, we feel that psychiatrists should resist pressure for this sort of ‘quick fix’ and reflect upon some of the dilemmas involved.

Crime-Preventing Neurointerventions and the Law

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Forsberg
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Sex Offenders ◽  
Ethical Issues ◽  
Medical Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Different Types ◽  
Legal Regimes ◽  
Health Legislation

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.

Learning disability and the Scottish Mental Health Act

2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
Heather Welsh ◽  
Gary Morrison
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Scottish Government ◽  
Health Legislation

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 for people with learning disabilities in Scotland, in the context of the recent commitment by the Scottish Government to review the place of learning disability (LD) within the Act. Design/methodology/approach All current compulsory treatment orders (CTO) including LD as a type of mental disorder were identified and reviewed. Data was collected on duration and type of detention (hospital or community based) for all orders. For those with additional mental illness and/or personality disorder, diagnoses were recorded. For those with LD only, symptoms, severity of LD and treatment were recorded. Findings In total, 11 per cent of CTOs included LD as a type of mental disorder. The majority of these also included mental illness. The duration of detention for people with LD only was almost double that for those without LD. A variety of mental illness diagnoses were represented, psychotic disorders being the most common (54 per cent). Treatment was broad and multidisciplinary. In all, 87 per cent of people with LD only were prescribed psychotropic medication authorised by CTO. Originality/value There has been limited research on the use of mental health legislation for people with learning disabilities. This project aids understanding of current practice and will be of interest to readers both in Scotland and further afield. It will inform the review of LD as a type of mental disorder under Scottish mental health law, including consideration of the need for specific legislation.

scholarly journals Involuntary community treatment in New South Wales, Australia

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 45-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Hambridge ◽  
Nicola Watt
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Perceived Benefits ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

The New South Wales Mental Health Act (1990) heralded a number of important changes to mental health legislation in the state. One of these was the option to give compulsory treatment to mentally ill clients living in the community. This article briefly explains community treatment under the Act, and the perceived benefits and the limitations of such legislation. A case example is used to illustrate some of these points. Involuntary community treatment is seen as a less restrictive alternative to hospitalisation for a number of mentally ill clients, but the use of such provisions demands significant resources from the supervising agency.

scholarly journals Mental health legislation in Botswana

2018 ◽  
Vol 16 (03) ◽  
pp. 68-70
Author(s):  
J. Maphisa Maphisa
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Disorders ◽  
United Nations ◽  
Persons With Disabilities ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
United Nations Convention ◽  
The United Nations ◽  
Health Legislation

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document