Mental Disorder and Human Rights

Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 231-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
George Szmukler

Abstract Recent challenges to conventional mental health laws concerning involuntary detention and treatment of persons with a mental disorder have led to proposals, or indeed an insistence, that fundamental reform is necessary. A key theme has been the need to eliminate unfair discrimination against people with a mental disorder because their human rights are not respected on an equal basis with other people. Some proposals depart radically from conventional assumptions concerning the justification of involuntary detention and treatment. One is a “fusion law,” a generic law applying to all persons lacking the ability to make a treatment decision, whether resulting from a “mental” or “physical” illness. An authoritative interpretation of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) goes so far as to maintain that involuntary interventions are a violation of the Convention.


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>


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Law Society

<p>The Law Society has long campaigned for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’), which is widely recognised as out of date and not fully compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. However the Law Society believes that the proposals contained in the Draft Mental Health Bill 2004 (‘the Bill’) are misconceived and fail to provide adequate safeguards to protect the rights of people with a mental disorder.</p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 75-81 ◽  
Author(s):  
Brendan D. Kelly

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.


2019 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-143
Author(s):  
Camillia Kong ◽  
Mehret Efrem ◽  
Megan Campbell

Informed consent procedures for participation in psychiatric genomics research among individuals with mental disorder and intellectual disability can often be unclear, particularly because the underlying ethos guiding consent tools reflects a core ethical tension between safeguarding and inclusion. This tension reflects important debates around the function of consent tools, as well as the contested legitimacy of decision-making capacity thresholds to screen potentially vulnerable participants. Drawing on human rights, person-centred psychiatry and supported decision-making, this paper problematises the use of consent procedures as screening tools in psychiatric genomics studies, particularly as increasing normative emphasis has shifted towards the empowerment and participation of those with mental disorder and intellectual disabilities. We expound on core aspects of supported decision-making, such as relational autonomy and hermeneutic competence, to orient consent procedures towards a more educative, participatory framework that is better aligned with developments in disability studies. The paper concludes with an acknowledgement of the pragmatic and substantive challenges in adopting this framework in psychiatric genomics studies if this participatory ethos towards persons with mental disorder and intellectual disability is to be fully realised.


Temida ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 25-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nevena Petrusic

This paper is aimed at analyzing the procedure of involuntary hospitalization of persons with mental disorder. Considering the fact that enforced hospitalization interferes with the fundamental human rights and individual freedoms, the rules of involuntary hospitalization procedure have to provide for the legality of decisions, prevent possible abuses and enable the exercise of legitimate rights and interests of persons with mental disorder confined to treatment in psychiatric institutions. Bearing in mind the significance of the involuntary hospitalization procedure, the author of this paper provides a critical analysis of the national regulation on involuntary hospitalization. The aim of this analysis is to observe whether the rules of involuntary hospitalization procedure comply with the generally recognized international and European standards on the human rights protection of persons with mental disorder, and to identify the shortcomings of the existing mechanism of involuntary hospitalization. Taking into consideration the results of this analysis, the author points to the necessity of reforming the involuntary hospitalization procedure and proposes possible directions for a further improvement of this legal institute.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document