Deciding to Detain: The Use of Compulsory Mental Health Law by Social Workers

Critical commentary

Major new mental health law long awaited

Opinion and Analysis: Major new mental health law long awaited

An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services

There have been important recent developments in law, research, policy and practice relating to supporting people with decision-making impairments, in particular when a person’s wishes and preferences are unclear or inaccessible. A driver in this respect is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD); the implications of the CRPD for policy and professional practices are currently debated. This article reviews and compares four legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making for people whose decision-making ability is impaired. In particular, it explores how these frameworks may apply to people with mental health problems. The four jurisdictions are: Ontario, Canada; Victoria, Australia; England and Wales, United Kingdom (UK); and Northern Ireland, UK. Comparisons and contrasts are made in the key areas of: the legal framework for supported and substitute decision-making; the criteria for intervention; the assessment process; the safeguards; and issues in practice. Thus Ontario has developed a relatively comprehensive, progressive and influential legal framework over the past thirty years but there remain concerns about the standardisation of decision-making ability assessments and how the laws work together. In Australia, the Victorian Law Reform Commission (2012) has recommended that the six different types of substitute decision-making under the three laws in that jurisdiction, need to be simplified, and integrated into a spectrum that includes supported decision-making. In England and Wales the Mental Capacity Act 2005 has a complex interface with mental health law. In Northern Ireland it is proposed to introduce a new Mental Capacity (Health, Welfare and Finance) Bill that will provide a unified structure for all substitute decision-making. The discussion will consider the key strengths and limitations of the approaches in each jurisdiction and identify possible ways that further progress can be made in law, policy and practice.

Risk, Recovery and Capacity: Competing or Complementary Approaches to Mental Health Social Work

Mental health social workers have a central role in providing support to people with mental health problems and in the use of coercion aimed at dealing with risk. Mental health services have traditionally focused on monitoring symptoms and ascertaining the risks people may present to themselves and/or others. This well-intentioned but negative focus on deficits has contributed to stigma, discrimination and exclusion experienced by service users. Emerging understandings of risk also suggest that our inability to accurately predict the future makes risk a problematic foundation for compulsory intervention. It is therefore argued that alternative approaches are needed to make issues of power and inequality transparent. This article focuses on two areas of practice: the use of recovery based approaches, which promote supported decision making and inclusion; and the assessment of a person’s ability to make decisions, their mental capacity, as a less discriminatory gateway criterion than risk for compulsory intervention.

Law of the Republic of Uzbekistan "On Protection of Mental Health in the Population of Uzbekistan"

The law provides rights for PWD for easy access of public goods, including education, social security, medical treatment, occupational and social rehabilitation and establishes an extent of responsibility of the government and its bodies for the creation of favourable conditions for the social adaptation of PWDs in market environment conditions.

Illinois submission for ... under Public law 99-660 "The State Comprehensive Mental Health Services Plan Act of 1986" and Public law 601-639 "Mental Health Amendments of 1990" for adults with serious mental illness.

Description based on: Sept. 30,1991.

The Illinois state plans, fiscal year ... for the construction of facilities for the mentally retarded (Title I-C) and community mental health centers (Title II) Public Law 88-164.

Title varies slightly.

Obligatory dangerousness criteria in the involuntary commitment and treatment provisions of Australian mental health legislation

Abstract Objective Involuntary commitment and treatment (IC&T) of people affected by mental illness may have reference to considerations of dangerousness and/or need for care. While attempts have been made to classify mental health legislation according to whether IC&T has obligatory dangerousness criteria, there is no standardised procedure for making classification decisions. The aim of this study was to develop and trial a classification procedure and apply it to Australia's mental health legislation. Method We developed benchmarks for ‘need for care’ and ‘dangerousness’ and applied these benchmarks to classify the mental health legislation of Australia's 8 states and territories. Our focus was on civil commitment legislation rather than criminal commitment legislation. Results One state changed its legislation during the course of the study resulting in two classificatory exercises. In our initial classification, we were able to classify IC&T provisions in legislation from 6 of the 8 jurisdictions as being based on either ‘need for care’ or ‘dangerousness’. Two jurisdictions used a terminology that was outside the established benchmarks. In our second classification, we were also able to successfully classify IC&T provisions in 6 of the 8 jurisdictions. Of the 6 Acts that could be classified, all based IC&T on ‘need for care’ and none contained mandatory ‘dangerousness’ criteria. Conclusions The classification system developed for this study provided a transparent and probably reliable means of classifying 75% of Australia's mental health legislation. The inherent ambiguity of the terminology used in two jurisdictions means that further development of classification may not be possible until the meaning of the terms used has been addressed in case law. With respect to the 6 jurisdictions for which classification was possible, the findings suggest that Australia's mental health legislation relies on ‘need for care’ and not on ‘dangerousness’ as the guiding principle for IC&T. Keywords: Involuntary commitment; Mental health legislation; Dangerousness; Australia