scholarly journals A comparison of mental health legislation in five developed countries: a narrative review

2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Cronin ◽  
P. Gouda ◽  
C. McDonald ◽  
B. Hallahan

ObjectivesTo describe similarities and differences in mental health legislation between five jurisdictions: the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), and Victoria (Australia).MethodsAn in-depth examination was undertaken focussing on the process of involuntary admission, review of Admission Orders and the legal processes in relation to treatment in the absence of patient consent in each of the five jurisdictions of interest.ResultsAll jurisdictions permit the detention of a patient if they have a mental disorder although the definition of mental disorder varies between jurisdictions. Several additional differences exist between the five jurisdictions, including the duration of admission prior to independent review of involuntary detention and the role of supported decision making.ConclusionsAcross the five jurisdictions examined, largely similar procedures for admission, detention and treatment of involuntary patients are employed, reflecting adherence with international standards and incorporation of human rights-based principles. Differences exist in relation to the criteria to define mental disorder, the occurrence of automatic review hearings in a timely fashion after a patient is involuntarily admitted and the role for supported decision making under mental health legislation.

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>


2017 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 74-82
Author(s):  
Heather Welsh ◽  
Gary Morrison

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to investigate the use of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 for people with learning disabilities in Scotland, in the context of the recent commitment by the Scottish Government to review the place of learning disability (LD) within the Act. Design/methodology/approach All current compulsory treatment orders (CTO) including LD as a type of mental disorder were identified and reviewed. Data was collected on duration and type of detention (hospital or community based) for all orders. For those with additional mental illness and/or personality disorder, diagnoses were recorded. For those with LD only, symptoms, severity of LD and treatment were recorded. Findings In total, 11 per cent of CTOs included LD as a type of mental disorder. The majority of these also included mental illness. The duration of detention for people with LD only was almost double that for those without LD. A variety of mental illness diagnoses were represented, psychotic disorders being the most common (54 per cent). Treatment was broad and multidisciplinary. In all, 87 per cent of people with LD only were prescribed psychotropic medication authorised by CTO. Originality/value There has been limited research on the use of mental health legislation for people with learning disabilities. This project aids understanding of current practice and will be of interest to readers both in Scotland and further afield. It will inform the review of LD as a type of mental disorder under Scottish mental health law, including consideration of the need for specific legislation.


2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-44
Author(s):  
Tom C. Russ ◽  
Alison Thomson ◽  
Donald Lyons

Aims and methodTo examine how capacity is recorded in practice and compare this with the statutory definition, medical reports accompanying a random 10% sample (183 applications; 360 reports) of guardianship applications granted in 2011–2012 were examined.ResultsClinicians did not explicitly use the statutory definition of capacity in 47.5% of reports. Over half of applications (56.4%) did not explicitly link the powers sought with the patient's vulnerabilities; such a link was less common in older adults (P = 0.0175).Clinical implicationsGuardianship orders can justify deprivation of liberty. Therefore it is important that such cases involve a thorough assessment of the person and that due process is followed, including adherence to the statutory definition of capacity. Practice could be improved by altering the paperwork required of medical practitioners, in line with mental health legislation. In addition, these findings should inform current legislation reform.


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 90-92
Author(s):  
Andrea Bahamondes ◽  
Alvaro Barrera ◽  
Jorge Calderón ◽  
Martin Cordero ◽  
Héctor Duque

Chile does not have a mental health law or act, and no single legal body protecting those deemed to be afflicted by a mental disorder, setting standards of care and protecting and promoting their rights. Instead, pieces of mental health legislation are scattered about in different legal and administrative documents, including the country's Constitution, Health Code, Criminal Code and Civil Code. Remarkably, mental health legislation was the object of virtually no change or amendment from the middle of the 19th century until the year 2001. New pieces of legislation have been issued since but, despite improvements in the protection of people suffering from a mental illness, a mental health law in Chile is still needed.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
D. Jolley ◽  
R. Heun

After eight years of tortured negotiations between government, professional psychiatrists and lay pressure groups, England and Wales will begin to use new Mental Health Legislation November 2008. This will not be a new Mental Health Act, but a substantial modification of the 1983 act. There are nine key changes:1.A single definition of mental disorder: ‘any disorder of mind or brain’.2.Criteria for compulsion: ‘appropriate medical treatment’ test.3.Age-appropriate services: special arrangements for under 18 years.4.Professional roles: approved clinicians and responsible clinicians (non-medical).5.Nearest relative: recognises Civil Partnerships, allows displacement.6.Supervised Community Treatment Orders.7.Mental health Review Tribunal: unified.8.Advocacy: Independent Mental Health Advocates.9.ECT: new safeguards.The Code of Practice identifies five key principles:1.Purpose - to minimise adverse effects of Mental Disorder.2.Least Restriction.3.Respect - diverse needs, values and circumstances.4.Participation - involving patient in planning, developing and reviewing treatment and care.5.Effectiveness, efficiency and equity - optimal use of resources.Earlier drafts had been described as: ‘little more than a Public Oder Bill dressed up as Mental Health legislation’; ‘ethically unworkable and practically unworkable’. Much of the dissent related to suggestions that people with Personality Disorder behaving in a dangerous or antisocial way should be subject to compulsory detention. Fears included breach of liberties and Human Rights and transformation of Mental Health Services disadvantaging people with major mental illnesses.


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 67-69
Author(s):  
Anthony Zahra ◽  
Miriam Camilleri ◽  
John Cachia

Until recently, the care of persons with mental disorder in Malta was regulated by mental health legislation enacted in 1976. This was closely modelled on the 1959 British Mental Health Act. Now, the Mental Health Act 2012 is being implemented in two steps, in 2013 and 2014. The paper reviews its provisions.


2010 ◽  
Vol 34 (6) ◽  
pp. 239-242 ◽  
Author(s):  
Evonne Shek ◽  
Donald Lyons ◽  
Mark Taylor

Aims and MethodTo capture psychiatrists' reasons for ‘significant impaired decision-making ability’ (SIDMA) as there is no definition of SIDMA in the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003. One hundred consecutive mental health reports from January to February 2008 were examined using a questionnaire.ResultsMore than half the mental health reports noted lack of insight as the main cause of SIDMA. Other reasons for SIDMA included limited cognitive function and presence of psychotic symptoms.Clinical implicationsFive reasons for SIDMA were identified: lack of insight, cognitive impairment, presence of psychosis, severe depressive symptoms and learning disability. We recommend psychiatrists working in Scotland give full descriptions of SIDMA, indicating how this has an impact on the patient's ability to make decisions.


Author(s):  
John Bellhouse ◽  
Anthony Holland ◽  
Isabel Clare ◽  
Michael Gunn ◽  
Peter Watson

<p>In this study, as capacity is ‘decision-specific’, we have assessed the capacity of men and women to make decisions about admission and treatment separately, using the Law Commission’s definition of incapacity. In this paper, we focus on a person’s capacity to consent to admission. Surprisingly, the courts in England and Wales have not directly explored the nature of the information relevant to a decision about admission to hospital. Admission without consent constitutes false imprisonment, which is both a civil tort, and a crime.</p>


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document