Article

Rising to the human rights challenge in compulsory treatment - new approaches to mental health law in Australia

Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia.
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry (Impact Factor: 3.77). 02/2012; 46(7):611-20. DOI: 10.1177/0004867412438872
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT To analyse, and explain to Australasian psychiatrists, recent proposed changes to the terms of coercive treatment for mental illness in Tasmania and Victoria and to place the proposals in the context of a broader human rights framework that is likely to impact the future shape of mental health legislation more generally.
The Australian law reform proposals are reviewed against the requirements of numerous human rights instruments, including the recently ratified United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. Ethical and legal arguments are made to support the proposed changes and to introduce others, taking into account academic commentary on mental health law and recent empirical work on the ability to usefully categorise patients by their likelihood of harm to self and others.
The Victorian and Tasmanian draft mental health bills propose a new basis for compulsory psychiatric treatment in Australasia. If they become law, coercive psychiatric treatment could only be applied to patients who lack decision-making capacity. The Tasmanian draft bill also sets a new benchmark for timely independent review of compulsory treatment. However both jurisdictions propose to retain an 'additional harm' test which must be satisfied before patients may be treated without consent. This differs from non-psychiatric cases, where if patients are unable to consent to medical treatment for themselves, they will be entitled to receive coercive treatment if it is in their best interests.
The proposed changes under the Tasmanian and Victorian draft mental health bills will ensure that, in line with local and international human rights obligations, only patients who lack decision-making capacity may be coercively treated for mental illness. However the continuing 'additional harm' criteria may breach human rights obligations by imposing a discriminatory threshold for care on patients who are unable to consent to treatment for themselves. This could be avoided by replacing the 'additional harm' test with a 'best interests' test.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
297 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Community treatment orders (CTOs) have been used in New Zealand since 1992 and are now used in most Commonwealth countries. There is little research on the rate of use of CTOs in New Zealand. This study compares the prevalence of CTO use across New Zealand's 20 health districts and makes comparisons with international prevalence rates. New Zealand Ministry of Health reports provided data on rates of CTO use in New Zealand between 2005 and 2011. International rates were obtained from published reports and academic literature on CTO use. Rates of CTO use in New Zealand show marked and persistent regional variation over the period of data collection. National average rates increased from 58 per 100,000 in 2005 to 84 per 100,000 in 2011. Rates of use of CTOs are increasing internationally. New Zealand's CTO use is high by international comparisons. New Zealand's high and increasing rate of CTO use by international standards raises questions about the delivery and functioning of mental health services, and about mental health service users' experience of mental health care. The high rate of CTO use needs to be addressed as a human rights issue as well as a clinical issue.
    Australasian Psychiatry 04/2014; 22(4). DOI:10.1177/1039856214531080 · 0.60 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Crowley v Commonwealth of Australia, ACT and Pitkethy [2011] ACTSC 89, a mental health service was found negligent for failing to pursue a recommendation to re-assess and arrange hospital admission of an acutely mentally ill man who was later injured after he was shot by police. The trial judge held that the mental health service was negligent for failing to exercise the statutory power of apprehension as provided for in the Mental Health (Treatment and Care) Act 1994 (ACT). The decision was overturned on appeal. In ACT v Crowley, Commonwealth of Australia and Pitkethy [2012] ACTCA 52, the ACT Court of Appeal held that the duty of care owed to the plaintiff was limited only to following up on the matters discussed with the person's family during a home visit on the previous evening. The Court of Appeal held that the scope of the duty of care owed by the mental health service did not include a duty to exercise the apprehension power. The High Court declined to grant special leave to appeal. All mental health legislation in Australia and New Zealand has provisions enabling mentally ill persons to be assessed and treated, even if the person is insightless and uncooperative. The appellate decision from the ACT is very relevant to the day-to-day operation of acute community mental health services.
    Psychiatry Psychology and Law 10/2013; 20(5):660-685. DOI:10.1080/13218719.2013.829386 · 0.35 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Policies generate accountability in that they offer a standard against which government performance can be assessed. A central question of this study is whether ideological imprint left by policy is realized in the time following its adoption. National mental health policy expressly promotes the notion of deinstitutionalization, which mandates that individuals be cared for in the community rather than in institutional environments. Methods We investigate whether mental health policy adoption induced a transformation in the structure of mental health systems, namely psychiatric beds, using panel data on 193 countries between 2001 and 2011. Results Our striking regression results demonstrate that late-adopters of mental health policy are more likely to reduce psychiatric beds in mental hospitals and other biomedical settings than innovators, whereas they are less likely than non-adopters to reduce psychiatric beds in general hospitals. Conclusions It can be inferred late adopters are motivated to implement deinstitutionalization for technical efficiency rather than legitimacy reasons.
    International Journal of Mental Health Systems 11/2014; 8(47). DOI:10.1186/1752-4458-8-47 · 1.06 Impact Factor

Full-text

Download
402 Downloads
Available from
May 17, 2014