DOCSLIB.ORG

Mental Health Legislation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Mental Health Legislation MENTAL HEALTH LEGISLATION AND HUMAN RIGHTS An Analysis of Australian State and Territory Mental Health Legislation in terms of The United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness A Background Paper for the National Inquiry Concerning the Human Rights of People with Mental Illness © Commonwealth of Australia ISBN 0 642 20462 4 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction should be directed to the Commission, Publications section, GPO Box 5218, Sydney, 2001 Produced by the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Sydney, December 1992 CONTENTS Executive Summary ............................................................................................... 1 Introduction .................................................................................................................. 7 Australian Capital Territory ................................................................................... 9 New South Wales .......................................................................................... 27 Victoria ........................................................................................................... 47 Queensland .................................................................................................... 73 Tasmania ........................................................................................................ 93 South Australia ............................................................................................. 109 Western Australia ......................................................................................... 125 Northern Territory ............................................................................................ 139 Appendix 1 Statutory Definitions of Mental Illness and Related Terms ......................................................... 155 Appendix 2 Criteria for Involuntary Admission ......................................... 157 Appendix 3 Procedures for Involuntary Admission ................................... 163 Appendix 4 UN Principles ..................................................................... 167 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This paper presents an indicative analysis of the mental health legislation in each State and Territory in terms of recently agreed international standards - the UN Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care. (See Appendix IV.) The legislation in every Australian jurisdiction breaches the standards prescribed in the UN Principles in a number of ways. In some jurisdictions these breaches constitute fundamental violations of basic human rights. Fundamental Freedoms and Basic Rights (UN Principle 1) There are few express provisions safeguarding patients' rights in States and Territories other than NSW and Victoria, and little emphasis on ensuring that treatment is carried out in the least restrictive environment. In fact, significant areas are simply not covered by legislation in many jurisdictions. This applies particularly to complaints handling, monitoring mechanisms and review procedures. In some States - South Australia, Queensland and the Northern Territory, for example - the police are given very wide powers which are inconsistent with a number of basic rights recognised in the Principles. There is a general lack of clarity in the various definitions of mental illness - and in some jurisdictions a total absence of any statutory definition. The result is that in every Australian State and Territory different definitions of mental illness apply. Guardianship provisions exist in most jurisdictions, complementing mental health legislation. (In South Australia and Tasmania, the Guardianship Boards are presently established under mental health statutes rather than separate guardianship legislation.) South Australia has given its Guardianship Board wide powers to order involuntary detention and make determinations consenting to medical and other treatment. In NSW, Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and the Australian Capital Territory there are independent guardianship bodies with power not only to appoint guardians for people with mental illness who are incapable of looking after their personal affairs but also to appoint managers for those who are incapable of managing their property. In the Northern Territory and Queensland there are similar bodies but they do not cover people with mental illness. In the Northern Territory the Chief Medical Officer has powers of guardianship in relation to the person (but not the property) of a 1 voluntary or involuntary patient who is considered to be incapable of managing "himself or his own affairs". There are no legislative provisions covering guardianship of people with mental illness in Queensland. The Public Trustee may, under the Queensland Mental Health Services Act, manage the estate of any person admitted to a psychiatric hospital following notification that the doctor in charge of the patient's treatment considers they are incapable of managing their own property. Discrimination on the ground of mental illness is covered by State anti-discrimination legislation in Victoria, Western Australia, Queensland and the ACT. The NSW law extends only to "physical" and "intellectual" disability - which leaves people with mental illness in a difficult position. South Australian law specifically excludes mental illness from the definition of disability for the purposes of discrimination. Tasmania and the Northern Territory still do not have anti-discrimination legislation. Admissions Voluntary Admissions (UN Principle 15) The provisions governing voluntary admission to psychiatric hospitals place a variety of restrictions on access to hospitalisation and on discharge. Involuntary Admissions (UN Principle 16) Criteria The criteria for involuntary admission and detention in several jurisdictions are less rigorous than those specified in the UN Principles. This is particularly the case in Queensland and South Australia. In Queensland the decision to detain is based on a broad, subjective discretion. In South Australia the Guardianship Board has power to order the involuntary detention of a protected person (who has been received into guardianship because of mental illness) without reference to any statutory criteria. Procedures Procedures for admission and detention in most jurisdictions meet the threshold standards set by the Principles. However, in most jurisdictions extensive powers are given to police, with or without warrants, in relation to individuals they believe are suffering from mental illness. In South Australia police are empowered to forcibly enter premises and apprehend individuals believed to be suffering from mental illness and believed to be a danger to 2 themselves, to others or to property. Similar provisions exist in a number of other jurisdictions. Treatment Community Treatment (UN Principles 3,7 and 9) Not all jurisdictions expressly recognise the principle of the least restrictive form of treatment - either in statements of statutory objectives or as a criterion for treatment. NSW and Victoria are the only States where people who meet the criteria for involuntary detention have the alternative of Community Treatment Orders instead of in-patient treatment. Mental health legislation in the other States and Territories does not provide for involuntary treatment without hospitalisation. Standards of Care and Allocation of Resources (UN Principles 8,10 and 14) There are some limited legislative provisions for equity of access to treatment for mental illness (as compared to physical illness) and for maintenance of standards in mental health facilities. However, the requirements in Principles 8 and 10 that every patient be protected from harm, including unjustified medication and abuse by other patients or staff, are not adequately covered by legislative provisions in most States. In NSW the Mental Health Act does contain safeguards in relation to the administration of medication as well as sanctions against abuse or neglect by staff. While all jurisdictions make some attempt to proscribe abuse and neglect, their provisions take little account of the special vulnerability of mental health patients. Indeed, in Tasmania the Mental Health Act requires that leave of the Supreme Court be obtained before proceedings are instituted for ill-treatment or wilful neglect of a patient under the Act. Informed Consent (UN Principle 11) The emphasis in the Principles on the need for appropriate disclosure of information to a patient and the need to obtain properly informed consent is generally not reflected in our mental health legislation. (However, the administration of two forms of treatment - psychosurgery and elect° convulsive therapy - is subject to detailed requirements relating to informed consent in NSW, Victoria, South Australia and the ACT.) Rights and Conditions in Mental Health Facilities (UN Principles 12 and 13) In general, the only recognition of the rights of patients to information and to privacy, religious freedom, educational and recreational opportunities is in the statutory statements of principle to be found in more recent mental health legislation (particularly in NSW and Victoria, and to a lesser extent in Queensland and South Australia). However,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • SIAA Mental Health Tribunal Advocacy Guidelines
    Mental Health Tribunal Advocacy Guidelines A companion to the Code of Practice for Independent Advocacy Published by: Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance, Melrose House, 69a George Street, Edinburgh, EH2 2JG www.siaa.org.uk Scottish Charity No. SC033576 Company No. 236526 Any part of this publication may be reproduced in any material form. The SIAA would like this document to be distributed as widely as possible. If you would like to photocopy it, feel free to do so. An electronic copy can be found at www.siaa.org.uk The Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance is funded by a grant from the Scottish Government. Design and typesetting by Luminous Creative www.luminouscreative.co.uk Copyright © Scottish Independent Advocacy Alliance 2012 ISBN: 978-0-9558394-7-4 Foreword The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 made a number of innovations in Scottish mental health law. For example, not only did section 21 of the Act establish the Mental Health Tribunal for Scotland, but section 1 sets out fundamental principles which those discharging functions under the Act — including the Tribunal — require to have regard to. The Tribunal is the body that grants and reviews compulsory measures for the detention, care and treatment of people with mental disorder. The Tribunal’s work is important because it impacts directly on the liberty of individuals. In my view, the principles set out in section 1 of the Act clearly put the focus on those individuals’ involvement in Tribunal proceedings. Section 259 is another innovative provision of the Act providing every person with a mental disorder with the right of access to independent advocacy.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Operation of Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 2001
    Report on the operation of Part 2 of the Mental Health Act 2001 Item Type Report Authors Mental Health Commission (MHC) Citation Mental Health Commission. Publisher Mental Health Commission (MHC) Download date 26/09/2021 20:52:19 Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10147/582383 Find this and similar works at - http://www.lenus.ie/hse REPORT ON THE OPERATION OF PART 2 OF THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT2001 April 2008 Report prepared by The Mental Health Commission MISSION The Mental Health Commission is committed to ensuring the interests of those involuntarily admitted pursuant to the provisions of the Mental Health Act 2001 are protected and to fostering and promoting high standards in the delivery of mental health services. ConTents ACKNOWLeDGeMenTS 5 CHAIRMAn’S InTRoDUCTION 6 FoReWoRD 8 eXTeRnAL CoMMenTARY ON THe LeGISLATION 9 1 THe MenTAL HeALTH CoMMISSION 29 MENTAL HeALTH CoMMISSION: STATUToRY ReGULAToRY FUnCTIONS 29 MeMBeRSHIP oF THe CoMMISSION 29 Office oF the InspectoR oF Mental Health SeRviceS 30 CoMMENCeMENT oF ALL ReMAInInG PARTS oF THe ACT 31 SeLeCTION AnD TRAInInG FoR CoMMENCeMENT 31 THe ReGISTeR oF APPROVED CENTReS 32 ReGULATIONS FoR APPROVED CENTReS 33 RULeS 33 CoDeS oF PRACTICe 34 2 CoMMenCeMenT oF PART 2 35 InFoRMATION AnD TRAInInG 35 STATUToRY AnD NON-STATUToRY FoRMS 36 CoURT RULeS 39 OtheR PReparatory IssueS 39 TRAnSITIONAL PROVISIONS 40 3 INVOLUnTARY ADMISSION oF ADULTS 41 NEW PRoCeDUReS FoR INVOLUnTARY ADMISSION (ADULTS) 41 INVOLUnTARY ADMISSION (ADULTS) 2007 42 DeTENTION oF A VOLUnTARY PATIENT; SeCTION 24 MENTAL HeALTH ACT
    [Show full text]
  • Decision-Making Behaviour Under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Its Impact on Mental Health Tribunals: an English Perspective
    laws Article Decision-Making Behaviour under the Mental Health Act 1983 and Its Impact on Mental Health Tribunals: An English Perspective Nicola Glover-Thomas ID School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester M13 9PL, UK; [email protected] Received: 21 February 2018; Accepted: 20 March 2018; Published: 24 March 2018 Abstract: In England and Wales, the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983) provides the legal framework which governs decisions made concerning the care and treatment of those suffering from mental disorders, where they may pose a risk to themselves or others. The perspective of the patient and the care provider may conflict and can be a source of tension and challenge within mental health law. Through access to a mental health tribunal, patients are offered the apparatus to review and challenge their detention. With detention rates under the mental health legislation rising exponentially, this is having a knock-on effect upon tribunal application numbers. As there is a legal requirement to review all cases of individuals detained under the MHA 1983, understanding the key drivers for this increase in detention is essential in order to understand how to better manage both detention rates and the upsurge in tribunal caseloads. With the increase in overall activity, mental health tribunal workloads present significant practical challenges and has downstream cost implications. Keywords: detention; caseload; mental health tribunal; Mental Health Act 1983; decision-making; risk; costs 1. Introduction Mental illness costs the UK economy £100 billion a year (Johnson 2016; McCrone et al. 2008). In 2012, the Her Majesty’s (HM) Government spent £126 billion on health (HM Treasury 2011, p.
    [Show full text]
  • The Mental Health Act Commission
    ORIGINAL PAPERS The Mental Health Act Commission Christopher Curran and William Bingley The aim of this article is to promote a clearer under for Health to establish the Mental Health Act standing of the Mental Health Commission's develop Commission. The Commission was established ment, structure and function. Over recent years, mental on 1 September 1983 under the Mental Health health professionals and patients have become more Act Commission (Establishment and Consti aware of the organisation and its work, although some tution) Order (S.I. 1983 No. 892), and started may remain uncertain about its function and how it work on 30 September 1983. fits into the overall care of detained patients. The Commission's fundamental job is to safeguard the well- being and interests of patients detained under the Act. Present structure and composition of Its remit does not extend to informal patients. Unless the Commission otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the 1983 Mental Health Act. The Commission is governed by the Mental Health Act Commission Regulations (S.I. 1983 No. 894). It is a special health authority within the National Health Service (Fig. 1) and com Historical perspective prises approximately 90 part-time Commission From the 18th century, special bodies have ex ers. They are appointed by the Secretary of isted to monitor the use of statutory powers and State for Health for England and the Secretary of ensure that mentally disordered people receive State for Wales, usually for four years. Commis appropriate care. Early forerunners of the Mental sioners are drawn from a multi-professional Health Act Commission were the Commissioners background, and they include lawyers, doctors, in Lunacy, established in 1774 under the Act for nurses, social workers, psychologists, academ Regulating Private Madhouses.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Summary
    Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty Summary Law Com No 372 (Summary) 13 March 2017 Summary 1. This is a summary of our final report on Mental Capacity and Deprivation of Liberty, published on 13 March 2017. Pages 1 to 9 summarise our main recommendations and their context. Pages 10 onwards give further detail. Full details are in the report. A glossary explaining some of the terminology used in the report and in this summary is attached at page 27. The purpose of the project was to review the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and consider how the law should protect people who need to be deprived of their liberty in order to receive care or treatment and lack the capacity to consent to this. Article 5 of the European Convention on Human Rights (“ECHR”) guarantees the right to personal liberty and provides that no-one should be deprived of liberty in an arbitrary fashion. If a person is deprived of liberty then certain safeguards must be provided, including entitlement to bring legal proceedings to challenge the deprivation of liberty. Such situations also engage an individual’s right to private and family life under Article 8 of the ECHR. 2. The project was announced in 2014. Its first stage led to the publication of a consultation paper in July 2015 setting out provisional proposals for law reform. Following consultation we published an interim statement in May 2016. The publication of our final report marked the completion of the project. These documents, together with an analysis of the consultation responses that we received, are available on the mental capacity and deprivation of liberty project’s page of the Law Commission’s website, at http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/project/mental-capacity-and-deprivation-of-liberty/.
    [Show full text]
  • MAKING DECISIONS for PEOPLE WHO LACK CAPACITY Mental Capacity Act 2005
    MAKING DECISIONS FOR PEOPLE WHO LACK CAPACITY Mental Capacity Act 2005 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEMENTAL CAPACITY ACT (MCA) AND THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT (MHA) This is one of a series of resource materials for clinical ethics committees providing explanation and discussion of the sections of the Mental Capacity Act which are particularly relevant to their work. Introduction Mental disorder may sometimes be associated with impaired decision making capacity. This incapacity may be temporary during acute periods of illness or more sustained in those with severe and enduring mental health problems. In such circumstances treatment will proceed using the provisions contained in the MCA. On occasions a person may be so unwell that they may also fulfill the criteria for detention in hospital under the Mental Health Act (MHA) for assessment and treatment of their mental disorder . When this occurs it may be unclear as to the most appropriate legislative route to take (see link for a summary of the MHA http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Publicationsandstatistics/Legislation/Actsandbills/DH_4002034) Case example Box 1 Case example Mrs A Mrs A is severely depressed and extremely withdrawn. She passively goes along with her husband who brings her to the ward for admission. She makes no attempt to go when her husband leaves but later sits staring at the door asking to go home. She cannot engage in any discussion about the treatment plan. The team thinks she lacks decision making capacity. The team then discusses whether she should be treated under the MCA (as she lacks capacity) or, given that she has not consented to the admission and looks as if she wants to leave, whether the MHA would be more appropriate.
    [Show full text]
  • The Human Rights Act and Mental Health Law: Has It Helped? the Human Rights Act and Mental Health Law: Has It Helped?1 Brenda Hale2
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Northumbria Journals The Human Rights Act and Mental Health Law: Has it Helped? The Human Rights Act and Mental Health Law: Has it Helped?1 Brenda Hale2 The short and gloomy answer must be – not very much. But that all depends upon how one thinks about human rights and what one hoped for from the Act. Lawyers – perhaps especially the English lawyers who helped draft the European Convention and who practise in the administrative court today – tend to think of human rights in terms of civil liberties and political freedoms and only to a limited extent in terms of economic and social rights.3 But there is a much broader conception of human rights which can be found in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948 and its daughter Covenants of 1966, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. It can also be found in the United Nations Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and for the Improvement of Mental Health Care.4 I think these principles can be summed up in five basic propositions: (1) People with mental disorders and disabilities should be enabled to receive the treatment and care which they need. (2) This applies to all people, without discrimination on grounds such as sex, racial or ethnic origin, sexual orientation, religion, membership of a particular social group, or the nature of their disorder or disability. (3) Enabling does not mean enforcing.
    [Show full text]
  • Considering the Profound Differencesbetween Mental Health
    “Who Will Judge the Many When the Game is Through?”: Considering the Profound Differences Between Mental Health Courts and “Traditional” Involuntary Civil Commitment Courts Michael L. Perlin, Esq. INTRODUCTION For forty years, we have known that involuntary civil commitment hearings are—in most jurisdictions—“charades.”1 When the Supreme Court noted, in Parham v. J.R., that the average length of a civil commitment hearing ranged from 3.8 to 9.2 minutes,2 the reaction of many Professor Emeritus of Law, Founding Director, International Mental Disability Law Reform Project, New York Law School; Co-founder, Mental Disability Law and Policy Associates; J.D. 1969, Columbia Law School; A.B. 1966, Rutgers University ([email protected]; [email protected]). Portions of this paper were presented at the annual Therapeutic Jurisprudence Workshop at Osgoode Hall Law School, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, October 15, 2016; at St. Joseph’s Healthcare’s Forensic Psychiatry Program, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, December 14, 2016; at the Second International Conference on Non-Adversarial Justice: Integrating Theory and Practice as the keynote address, sponsored by the Australasian Institute of Judicial Administration, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, April 8, 2017; at the annual meeting of the Forensic and Correctional Psychology Interest Section of the Wisconsin Psychological Association as part of a Critical Issues in Forensic Psychology workshop, Madison, Wisconsin, June 16, 2017, and at the biennial Congress of the International Academy of Law and Mental Health, Prague, Czech Republic, July 12, 2017. My thanks to David Wexler, AnnMarie Dewhurst, Sandy Simpson, David Yamada, Heather Campbell, Gary Chaimowitz, and Dan Ambrosini for their helpful comments; to Sandy and to Voula Marinos for sharing their written work; and to Shelley Kierstead for convening and moderating the Osgoode Hall workshop.
    [Show full text]
  • Medical Treatment for Mental Disorder Under the MHA Policy
    Medical Treatment for Mental Disorder under the MHA Policy Mental Health Act 1983 as amended by the Mental Health Act 2007 HPFT Policy HPFT Version 5 Executive Lead Executive Director Quality & Safety Lead Author MHA Operational Manager Approved Date 06/06/2017 Approved By Mental Health Act Quality & Policy Group Ratified Date 06/06/2017 Ratified By Mental Health Act Quality & Policy Group Issue Date 28/07/2017 Expiry Date 28/02/2020 Target Audience This Policy must be understood by anyone: Prescribing or administrating treatment for a mental disorder and seeking consent to treatment Working with those subject to the provisions of the MHA, both detained and “community” patients. Document on a Page Title of document MHA Medical Treatment for Mental Disorder Document Type Policy Ratifying Policy Panel Committee Version Issue Date Review Date Lead Author MHA Operational 5 28/07/2017 28/07/2020 Manager Staff need to know about this policy All staff must be aware of which legal authority they are using to give because treatment for a mental disorder; there must be valid authority to treat (complete in 50 all patients detained under the MHA. Any treatment given without words) legal authority is an assault on that patient. Staff are encouraged to read Anyone administrating medication for a mental disorder must ensure the whole policy that there is a legal authority to do so. but I (the Author) have chosen three All patients admitted to an in-patient unit, whether informal or key messages from detained, should be assessed for their capacity to consent to the document to treatment.
    [Show full text]
  • Mental Health (Amendment) Bill Bill 8 of 1997/98 Research Paper 97/138
    The Mental Health (Amendment) Bill Bill 8 of 1997/98 Research Paper 97/138 9 December 1997 Dr. Julian Lewis MP's Private Member's Bill, the Mental Health Amendment Bill, is due to be debated on Second Reading on 12 December 1997. Its aim is to improve access to in-patient psychiatric facilities for people who do not meet the criteria for compulsory admission but who are still in need of "sanctuary". This Paper discusses the background to the Bill, including the changes in mental health legislation over the past hundred years, the shift from providing care in institutions to a policy of "care in the community", the current pressure on in-patient psychiatric beds, and conditions in psychiatric units. It then describes the Bill clause by clause and summarises the responses that have been made to it by interested organisations. Katharine Wright Social Policy Section House of Commons Library Library Research Papers are compiled for the benefit of Members of Parliament and their personal staff. Authors are available to discuss the contents of these papers with Members and their staff but cannot advise members of the general public. CONTENTS ISummary 5 II A history of psychiatric provision 7 III The balance between hospital care and care in the community 14 A. Care in the community 14 B. Availability of in-patient beds 15 C. Conditions in psychiatric hospitals 19 D. Government action 21 1. Conservative Government 21 2. Labour Government 22 IV The Mental Health (Amendment) Bill 24 V Responses to the Bill 25 Research Paper 97/138 I Summary Julian Lewis MP's Private Member's Bill, the Mental Heath Amendment Bill (Bill 8 of 1997- 98) is prompted by the concern that the way the policy of "care in the community" has been implemented in practice has led to patients who need in-patient care in a safe environment being unable to access such care.
    [Show full text]
  • 00 MENTAL HEALTH 2012 Edn 00-291.Qxd 22/12/11 14:21 Page 1
    00 MENTAL HEALTH 2012 edn 00-291.qxd 22/12/11 14:21 Page 1 Chapter 1 Background to the Mental Health Act 2007 Introduction The Mental Health Act, as passed in 2007 and largely implemented in 2008, is the result of ten years of debate. Many will see the Act as a disappointing conclusion to such a lengthy period of discussion and analysis. It is essentially an amendment Act which reforms the existing Mental Health Act 1983. In its final version the Act is not a particularly radical reform and it preserves most of the existing law. The UK Government’s initial plans were more radical but they met significant resistance as we shall see in this chapter. We will also look at the main changes in summary form. The structure of this book This book is essentially concerned with the Mental Health Act 1983 as revised by the 2007 amendments and as it operates in England and Wales. There are some differences between the two countries in terms of the Act but more significantly with the various rules, regulations and Codes of Practice. We try to highlight the differences where they are significant. The text of the Act itself is included within this book but occasionally readers may need to access the internet or seek other source materials for particular references (such as the Reference Guide). The book contains some material on the Mental Capacity Act because of its relevance to mental health law. The aim is to simplify the law as far as possible to make it accessible to professionals and to those affected by the law.
    [Show full text]
  • Are Mental Health Tribunals Operating in Accordance with International Human Rights Standards? a Systematic Review of the International Literature
    Are Mental Health Tribunals Operating in Accordance with International Human Rights Standards? A Systematic Review of the International Literature Aisha Macgregor, M.Res, M.A. (Hons) Research Assistant Centre for Mental Health and Capacity Law, School of Health and Social care, Edinburgh Napier University, Sighthill Campus, Edinburgh, EH11 4BN Tel: 0131 455 330, Email: [email protected] Michael Brown, Ph.D, M.Sc, RN Co-investigator School of Nursing and Midwifery, Queens University Belfast Jill Stavert*, Ph.D, B.A. (Hons) Principal Investigator Centre for Mental Health and Capacity Law, Edinburgh Napier University *corresponding author: [email protected] Abstract Mental health tribunals are responsible for making decisions about compulsory treatment for individuals considered a risk to themselves and others due to mental disorder. They are generally designed to provide safeguards for individuals subject to compulsory treatment by testing whether national legislative criteria and international human rights standards have been met. Despite this, they have been criticised for being dominated by the medical domain, focusing rigidly on legal criteria, and for restricting human rights, including the rights to liberty and access to justice. As a result, questions have arisen over the extent to which mental health tribunals are indeed operating in line with their legislative intentions and international human rights requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise international evidence on this and to assess the extent to which this is reflected in such literature. A systematic search of the literature was conducted on the 17th April 2018 for articles published between 2000 and 2018 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ASSIA, and Web of Science.
    [Show full text]