Best interests or legal rectitude?: Australian mental health tribunal stakeholder & case-flow implications

2009 ◽  
Author(s):  
Terry Carney
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Best Interests

Child Custody Decisions: How Legal and Mental Health Professionals View the Concept of ‘Best Interests of the Child’

1987 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 127-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
E.A.A. Lambiase ◽  
J.W. Cumes
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
South Africa ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Child Custody ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Psychological Literature

Close scrutiny of legal precedents and psychological literature has revealed significant differences in the views of legal and mental health professionals regarding the major criteria used in custody decisions. This article carries the investigation further and considers empirically the responses to the criteria of these two groups of professionals in South Africa. Findings show subtle but significant differences between them, particularly with regard to the ‘child’ dimension of the ‘best interests’ concept. The implications for mental health professionals in their evaluation of custody cases, and in their giving of testimony, are underscored.

scholarly journals Reforming the Mental Health Act 1983: ‘Joined Up Compulsion’

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Philip Fennell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personality Disordered

<p>This article discusses the two volume White Paper <em>Reforming the Mental Health Act</em> issued by the Government in December 2000. The two volumes are separately titled <em>The New Legal Framework</em> and <em>High Risk Patients</em>. The foreword to the White Paper appears above the signatures of the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. This is heralded as an example of ‘joined up government’, and indeed one of the themes of the White Paper is the need for closer working between the psychiatric and criminal justice systems. The primary policy goal of the proposals is the management of the risk posed to other people by people with mental disorder, perhaps best exemplified in Volume One of the White Paper which proclaims that ‘Concerns of risk will always take precedence, but care and treatment should otherwise reflect the best interests of the patient.’ This is a clear reflection of the fact that the reforms are taking place against the background of a climate of concern about homicides by mentally disordered patients, whether mentally ill, learning disabled, or personality disordered.</p>

If I Treat My Staff Well, They Will Take Care of Me and Look Out for My Best Interests

2019 ◽  
pp. 81-85
Author(s):  
Jeffrey E. Barnett ◽  
Jeffrey Zimmerman
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Health Practitioner ◽  
Business Owner ◽  
Mental Health Practitioner ◽  
Employment Practices ◽  
Primary Motivation ◽  
Staff Members ◽  
Policies And Procedures

It may be easy to believe that if one treats one’s employees well, the employees will look out for the practice owner’s best interests. After all, they each should have the success of the practice as their primary motivation for decisions made and actions taken. Yet, as this chapter illustrates, this frequently is not the case. Employees, while often responding more favorably to positive employment practices, nevertheless may not share the practice owner’s interests. Each mental health practitioner who hires employees and staff members should create policies and procedures relevant to the effective running of the practice and then provide sufficient oversight to ensure that all employees follow them. This chapter emphasizes how the business owner is responsible for the success of the business. Specific strategies and steps to take to help ensure the effective running of one’s practice are provided. Common staff challenges are highlighted and specific recommendations for addressing them are provided.

Whose Life is it Anyway? Life and Death in the Court of Protection

2018 ◽  
pp. 245-252
Author(s):  
Clementine Maddock
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
New World ◽  
Mental Health Problems ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Life And Death ◽  
Life Sustaining Treatment ◽  
Brave New World ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
Patient’S Will ◽  
Death Cases

Psychiatrists are entering a brave new world. Following the introduction of the Mental Capacity Act, there has been an increase in the number of decisions regarding refusal of life sustaining treatment being heard in the Court of Protection. Many of these cases involve patients with mental health problems. Although in some cases, such as those with anorexia, treatment can be given against a patient’s will under the Mental Health Act, the question has become whether we should continue to give treatment to a patient who is actively refusing and who has not benefited from treatment for this condition over the last 10 to 15 years. In other cases, patients are refusing life-sustaining treatment for conditions unrelated to a mental disorder, who are deemed to lack capacity to make that decision. This essay will consider how the courts are interpreting the ‘best interests’ doctrine in these life or death cases.

The ethics of coercion in community mental health care

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tania Gergel ◽  
George Szmukler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Community Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Care ◽  
Community Treatment ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Community Mental Health Care ◽  
Involuntary Treatment ◽  
Community Treatment Orders ◽  
Specific Context

The specific context of community mental health care affects the debate surrounding coercion in psychiatry, not by raising radically new questions but by highlighting the complexity of this debate and some of the associated ethical difficulties. This chapter begins by looking at the varying conventional justifications for involuntary treatment and then considers the different mechanisms through which such ‘coercion’ is enforced within the community—from formal compulsion via community treatment orders (CTOs) through to ‘softer’ pressures, such as ‘persuasion’ or ‘interpersonal leverage’. Some commonly accepted ideas surrounding interventions such as ‘incentives’ and ‘threats’ are challenged. The chapter concludes with some broad suggestions as to a how a reformulated ‘decision-making capability and best interests’ approach may be one way to increase the ethical viability of community coercion.

The law relating to mental capacity and mental health

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kay Wheat
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

This chapter will examine two key areas of law relating to medical treatment and care of those with mental disorder. The question of decision-making capacity is important for health care professionals, and other carers and agents dealing with older people. The law relating to this is covered by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 supplemented by previous case law where this is still relevant, and the key aspect of the law is the ability to treat people without capacity in their best interests. However, in the case of some patients, it may be necessary to use the Mental Health Act 1983. This legislation is focussed, not on the capacity of the patient, but upon the effect that a mental disorder can have upon the patient risking damage to their own well-being, or to the well-being of others. The relationship between the two areas is not always clear.

Mandatory Reporting of Child Abuse: Is it in the Best Interests of the Child?

1996 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 794-804 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pamela Budai
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Child Abuse ◽  
Mandatory Reporting ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Mental Health Providers ◽  
Health Providers ◽  
Ethical Practice ◽  
The Law ◽  
Important Clinical Implication ◽  
Do So

Objective: To set out correctly the law on mandatory reporting of child abuse in each Australian jurisdiction and New Zealand to argue that all patients should be forewarned of the limits of confidentiality in respect of this and to discuss the question of whether mandatory reporting is in the best interests of the child. Method: Discussion of statutes mandating reporting of child abuse, duty of confidentiality, the experience of mandatory reporting and failure to comply, forewarning of limits of confidentiality, arguments for and against mandatory reporting, and alternatives. Results: Not all mental health providers comply with the law, for reasons both altruistic and non-altruistic. Although ethical codes for Australian mental health providers do not require forewarning, ethical practice would seem to do so. Conclusions: Mandatory reporting statutes now in force are not necessarily in the best interests of the child. An important clinical implication of the law is that consideration should be given to forewarning patients.

scholarly journals The Mental Capacity Act and mental healthcare in prison: opportunities and challenges

2012 ◽  
Vol 36 (7) ◽  
pp. 241-243 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Davies ◽  
Claire Dimond
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Healthcare ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
People With Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
The Uk

SummaryThe UK Mental Health Act 1983 does not apply in prison. The legal framework for the care and treatment of people with mental illness in prison is provided by the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We raise dilemmas about its use. We highlight how assessing best interests and defining harm involves making challenging judgements. How best interests and harm are interpreted has a potentially significant impact on clinical practice within a prison context.

scholarly journals Patients' awareness of the mental health tribunal and capacity to make requests

2013 ◽  
Vol 37 (11) ◽  
pp. 363-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nuwan Galappathie ◽  
Rajendra Kumar Harsh ◽  
Mathew Thomas ◽  
Amina Begum ◽  
Danielle Kelly
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Patient Awareness ◽  
Hospital Managers ◽  
Secretary Of State ◽  
Mode Of Application

Aims and methodTo evaluate patient awareness of the mental health tribunal and identify any association between capacity to request a tribunal and frequency of completed hearings. A cohort of detained patients within a secure hospital were assessed and data for past tribunals evaluated by presence of capacity and mode of application.ResultsOf the 65 patients evaluated, 78% were aware of the tribunal's power to discharge, 14% were aware of its power to recommend leave and 4% were aware of its power to recommend transfer; 12% lacked capacity to request a tribunal. Patients with capacity received more completed hearings per year than those without, both overall (0.58 v. 0.29 per year, P = 0.04) and by patient application (0.45 v. 0.12 per year, P = 0.03).Clinical implicationsHospital managers should ensure that all detained patients have regular assessments of their capacity to request a tribunal and that those who lack capacity are referred to the Secretary of State when it is considered that a tribunal would be in their best interests. Hospital managers should consider referring such cases to the Secretary of State every 12 months.

The law relating to mental capacity and mental health

2020 ◽  
pp. 907-916
Author(s):  
Kay Wheat
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Health Care Professionals ◽  
Mental Capacity ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Mental Capacity Act 2005 ◽  
The Law ◽  
Mental Capacity Act ◽  
The Relationship

This chapter examines two key areas of law relating to medical treatment and care of those with mental disorder. The question of decision-making capacity is important for health care professionals, as well as other carers and agents dealing with older people. The law relating to this is covered by the Mental Capacity Act 2005 supplemented by previous case law where this is still relevant, and the key aspect of the law is the ability to treat people without capacity in their best interests. However, in the case of some patients, it may be necessary to use the Mental Health Act 1983. This legislation is focused, not on the capacity of the patient, but upon the effect that a mental disorder can have upon the patient risking damage to their own wellbeing, or to the wellbeing of others. The relationship between the two areas is not always clear.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document