Mental health legislation in the commonwealth

Current Opinion in Psychiatry

Volumn 20, Issue 5, 2007, Pages 482-485

  Carney, Terry ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SYDNEY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Law reform; Mental health; Review of committal

Indexed keywords

GOVERNMENT REGULATION; MEDICOLEGAL ASPECT; MENTAL HEALTH CARE; REVIEW; SOCIAL SECURITY;

AUSTRALIA; FORENSIC PSYCHIATRY; HEALTH CARE REFORM; HUMANS; INFORMED CONSENT; MENTAL COMPETENCY; MENTAL DISORDERS; MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES;

EID: 34548462962     PISSN: 09517367     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e32826fb321     Document Type: Review

References (48)

1. Appelbaum P. Almost a revolution: an international perspective on the law of involuntary commitment. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 1997; 25:135-147.
2. Morris G. Refusing the right to refuse: coerced treatment of mentally disordered persons. Lake Mary, Florida: Vandeplas Publishing; 2006.
3. La Fond J. Law and the delivery of involuntary mental health services. Am J Orthopsychiatry 1994; 64:209-222.
4. Zaheer D. Expanding California's coerced treatment for the mentally ill: is the promise of caring treatment in the community a lost hope? South Calif Interdiscip Law J 2001; 10:385-409.
5. Fennell P, Goldstein RL. The application of civil commitment law and practices to a case of delusional disorder: a cross-national comparison of legal approaches in the United States and the United Kingdom. Behav Sci Law 2006; 24:385-406. An interesting paper showing the limited normative impact of law when compared with more powerful organizational or resource issues.
6. Anfang S, Appelbaum PS. Civil commitment: the American experience. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2006; 43:209-218.
7. Perlin M. The hidden prejudice: mental disability on trial. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2000.
8. Jones K. The limitations of the legal approach to mental health. Int J Law Psychiatry 1980; 3:1-15.
9. Doran I. Elder guardianship kaleidoscope: a comparative perspective. Int J Law Policy Family 2002; 16:368-398.
10. Richardson G. Involuntary treatment: searching for principles. In: Diesfeld K, Freckelton I, editors. Involuntary detention and therapeutic jurisprudence. Aldershot: Ashgate; 2003. pp. 55-73.
11. Richardson G. Autonomy, guardianship and mental disorder: one problem, two solutions. Mod Law Rev 2002; 65:702-723.
12. Wand T, Chiarella M. A conversation: challenging the relevance and wisdom of separate mental health legislation. Int J Ment Health Nurs 2006; 15:119-127.
13. Dawson J, Szmukler G. Fusion of mental health and incapacity legislation. Br J Psychiatry 2006; 188:504-509. A comprehensive contemporary review of the arguments in favour of generic 'competence' approaches to access to healthcare in place of retention of separate mental health legislation.
14. Beumont P, Carney T. Can psychiatric terminology be translated into legal regulation: the anorexia example. Aust N Z J Psychiatry 2004; 38:819-829.
15. Margolin J, Witztum E. Mental health legislation: an unavoidable necessity or a harmful anachronism? Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2006; 43:219-227. A discussion of arguments in favour of retaining separate legislation to regulate involuntary admission and care of patients with mental illness.
16. Bloom JD. Thirty-five years of working with civil commitment statutes. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 2004; 32:430-439.
17. Rosca P, Bauer A, Grinshpoon A, et al. Rehospitalizations among psychiatric patients whose first admission was involuntary: a 10-year follow-up. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci 2006; 43:57-64.
18. Dawson J. Fault-lines in community treatment order legislation. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006; 29:482-494.
19. Geller J, Fisher WH, Grudzinskas AJJ, et al. Involuntary outpatient treatment as 'deinstitutionalized coercion': the net-widening concerns. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006; 29:551-562. An important study which shows that net widening may not result from well drawn and administered mental health outpatient (or community) treatment laws.
20. Wales H, Hiday V. PLC or TLC: is outpatient commitment the/an answer. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006; 29:451-468. A thorough review of the international literature and empirical research regarding the different forms of outpatient (community) treatment laws, and the evaluative balance sheet regarding the advantages and disadvantages of such measures.
21. Monahan J, Redlich AD, Swanson J, et al. Use of leverage to improve adherence to psychiatric treatment in the community. Psychiatr Serv 2005; 56:37-44.
22. Bonnie R, Monahan J. From coercion to contract: reframing the debate on mandated community treatment for people with mental disorders. Law Hum Behav 2005; 29:485-503.
23. Van Dorn R, Elbogen E, Redlich AD, et al. The relationship between mandated community treatment and perceived barriers to care in persons with severe mental illness. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006; 29:495-506. An important paper on the under-researched issue of the relationship between legal norms (or regulation), and attitudes and other perceptions which shape decisions about entry to mental healthcare.
24. Brophy L, Reece J, McDermott F. A cluster analysis of people on community treatment orders in Victoria, Australia. Int J Law Psychiatry 2006; 29:469-481.
25. Peay J. Tribunals on trial: a study of decision-making under the Mental Health Act 1983. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1989.
26. Perkins E. Decision-making in mental health review tribunals. London: Policy Studies Institute; 2003.
27. Houlihan GD. The powers and duties of psychiatric nurses under the Mental Health Act 1983: a review of the statutory provisions in England and Wales. J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs 2005; 12:317-324.
28. Cairns R, Maddock C, Buchanan A, et al. Prevalence and predictors of mental incapacity in psychiatric in-patients. Br J Psychiatry 2005; 187:379-385.
29. Dawson J, Kampf A. Incapacity principles in mental health laws in Europe. Psychol Public Policy Law 2006; 12:310-331. Reviews European and other models for addressing capacity issues and explores possible implications of different approaches.
30. Eastman N, Campbell C. Neuroscience and legal determination of criminal responsibility. Nat Rev Neurosci 2006; 7:311-318.
31. Garland B, Glimcher PW. Cognitive neuroscience and the law. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2006; 16:130-134.
32. Richardson G, Machin D. A clash of values:MHRTs and judicial review. J Ment Health Law 1999; 1:3-12.
33. Richardson G, Machin D. Judicial review and tribunal decision making: a study of the Mental Health Review Tribunal. J Public Law 2000; (autumn):494-514.
34. Richardson G, Machin D. Doctors on tribunals: a confusion of roles. Br J Psychiatry 2000; 176:110-115.
35. Sadurski W. Enduring and empowering: the Bill of Rights in the third millennium: postcommunist charters of rights in Europe and the US Bill of Rights. Law Contemp Prob 2002; 65:223-250.
36. Koutnatzis S. Social rights as a constitutional compromise: lessons from comparative experience. Columbia J Transnat Law 2005; 44:74-133.
37. Iding L. In a poor state: the long road to human rights protection on the basis of social condition. Alberta Law Rev 2003; 41:513-525.
38. Macklem P. Social rights in Canada. Toronto: Faculty of Law, University of Toronto; 2006. A comprehensive review of human rights and associated issues regarding the neglected question of positive 'rights' to obtain treatment or services.
39. Otto D, Wiseman D. In search of 'effective remedies': applying the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights to Australia. Aust J Human Rights 2001; 7:5-46.
40. Kelly BD. The Power Gap: Freedom, power and mental illness. Soc Sci Med 2006; 63:2118-2128. A nice examination of philosophical and political science perspectives which might help to explain the powerlessness and lack of 'voice' for people with mental illness.
41. Sen A. Capability and well being, in the quality of life. Nussbaum M, Sen A, editors. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1993. pp. 30-53.
42. Sen A. Commodities and capabilities. Amsterdam: North-Holland; 1985.
43. Rosenhan D, Spitzer R. Do diagnostic labels hinder the effective treatment of persons with mental disorders? In: Slife B, Rubinstein J, editors. Taking sides: clashing views on controversial psychological issues. Guilford, UK: Dushkin Publishing Group; 1992. pp. 254-285.
44. Carney T. Complex needs at the boundaries of mental health, justice and welfare: gatekeeping issues in managing chronic alcoholism treatment? Curr Issues Crim Just 2006; 17:347-361.
45. Grudzinskas AJJ, Clayfield JC, Roy-Bujnowski K, et al. Integrating the criminal justice system into mental health service delivery: the Worcester diversion experience. Behav Sci Law 2005; 23:277-293.
46. Brown K, Murphy E. Falling through the cracks: the Quebec mental health system. McGill Law J 2000; 45:1037-1079.
47. Weisstub D, Carney T. Forensic Mental Health Law Reform in Japan: from criminal warehousing to broad-spectrum specialist services? Int J Law Psychiatry 2006; 29:86-100.
48. Dixon A, McDaid D, Knapp M, et al. Financing mental health services in low- and middle-income countries. Health Policy Plan 2006; 21:171-182. Discusses mental health planning and financing models thought to be more appropriate to developing economies than simple application of First World models.