Lost in Translation : Human Rights and Mental Health Law

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.


Author(s):  
Brenda Hale

<p align="LEFT">This article focusses on two questions in relation to the interplay of the Human Rights Act and the Mental Health Law: the right to choose, and the process of compulsion.</p>


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 93-94
Author(s):  
David Jimenez ◽  
Christina Alejandrina Eguiguren ◽  
Dominic Dougall ◽  
Bartłomiej Pliszka ◽  
Ian Hall

Mental health law in Peru is developing. The Peruvian Constitution enshrines important human rights principles in relation to people with mental health problems but the enactment of such principles into national legislation is very patchy. This means that people with mental health problems, especially those admitted to hospital, may not receive optimum care and may be at risk of having their human rights breached. In this article we consider how far the current national legislation meets these constitutional rights and what the legislation that is in development may ultimately achieve.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document