Severe mental disorder as a basic commitment criterion for minors

Since 1991, commitment to involuntary psychiatric care has been allowed in Finland for minors in broader terms than for adults. While in adults mental illness has to be diagnosable before involuntary treatment can be imposed, minors can be committed to and detained in involuntary psychiatric treatment if they suffer from "severe mental disorders", and fulfil the further commitment criteria defined in the Mental Health Act. The first years of the new mental health legislation showed an increase in involuntary treatment of minors in Finland. Concerns were raised about the imprecise nature of the commitment criterion "severe mental illness". This study set out to find out whether Finnish child and adolescent psychiatrists are in agreement on how to define severe mental illness and whether their interpretations are sufficiently similar to ensure the equality of minors in commitment to psychiatric care as prescribed by the Mental Health Act. Semi-structured, reflexive dyadic interviews were carried out with 44 psychiatrists working with children and adolescents. The data was analysed using qualitative content analysis. There was general agreement about what constitutes a "severe mental disorder" justifying the involuntary psychiatric treatment of minors. The child and adolescent psychiatrists were of the opinion that involuntary treatment of minors should not be tied to specific diagnostic categories. Which disorders are severe enough to justify commitment should rather be considered through developmental and functional impairment and interactions between a minor and her/his environment.     

Attitudes among stakeholders towards compulsory mental health care in Norway

Objectives

The Norwegian Mental Health Care Act allows use of coercion under certain conditions. Even though the current practice has been criticized, little empirical data exist about the attitudes towards compulsory mental health care.

Method

This study used Q-methodology to identify prototypical attitudes and to test possible differences of attitudes between groups of stakeholders towards the use of coercion in mental health care. Sixty-two respondents who represented six groups with different roles in mental health care participated: former patients, relatives of psychiatric patients, members of supervisory commissions, psychiatrists, other physicians, and lawyers.The participants were asked to assess the degree to which they agreed on 30 statements concerning use of coercion for the mentally ill.

Results

Three factors that in a meaningful way express different attitudes towards the question were found. The most widely shared attitude stated that a trusting relationship between patient and therapist is more important than the right to have an attorney. This attitude gives partial support to the present Mental Health Care Act. However, the second most common attitude argues that involuntary hospitalization, if necessary, should be decided in a court and not by the hospital doctor.

Conclusions

Differences in attitude could partly be explained by the respondents' role in mental health care. Both psychiatrists and “somatic” physicians expressed more agreement with the present legislation than the other stakeholders. The findings may have implications for the legal protection of mental health care patients.     

"Chartering" the limits of involuntary psychiatric treatment in Victoria: interpreting the Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) in the age of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic)

The Mental Health Act 1986 (Vic) allows for individuals with a serious mental illness to be treated on an involuntary basis either in a psychiatric hospital (on an involuntary treatment order) or in the community (on a community treatment order). The Act also establishes the Mental Health Review Board with the authority to review these orders within eight weeks of those orders being made and at least once every 12 months thereafter. This article analyses a recent decision of the board, Re Appeal of 09-085 [2009] VMHRB 1, in which the appellant challenged a decision of a psychiatrist to extend his community treatment order for a further 12 months. The appellant argued that aspects of his involuntary treatment under the Act amounted to "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment and therefore breached his right to freedom from "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment under s 10(b) of Victoria's recently enacted Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic). Thus, the board was asked to consider whether the definition of "treatment" under the Act was compatible with the rights and freedoms enacted by the Charter. This was the first time that a Victorian court or tribunal had considered the impact of the Charter on involuntary psychiatric treatment. The decision was also a prelude to the Victorian Government's announcement that it would comprehensively review its mental health legislation, now the oldest in Australia. As this case highlights, in determining the future direction of mental health legislation and policy in Victoria, the Charter has been crucial.     

精神卫生法的理想与现实

《精神卫生法》的立法经历了一个极其漫长的过程,最终出台的法律文本仍然存在非常严重的问题,其立法所要解决的问题所要达到的目的非常高,而与中国的现实严重脱节。《精神卫生法》立法的三大理想中,保护精神病患者的合法权益是核心,并希望立法来解决包括被精神病等一系列的社会现实问题。但是,立法脱离现实,相关的内容甚至出现了错误,表现在精神病患者的收治、实施导致人体器官丧失功能的外科手术、急诊急救、基层医疗机构的精神卫生保障等方面。由于存在不切合中国实际国情的规定,《精神卫生法》在我国的实施将会大打折扣。建议《精神卫生法》重点关注严重精神疾病患者得不到治疗、肇事肇祸的严重精神疾病患者得不到强制医疗的现象,关注财政投入不足、强制收治不规范等方面的问题。     

Compulsory mental health care in Norway: The treatment criterion

The Norwegian government has chosen to retain a treatment criterion in the Mental Health Care Act despite the opposition of several user organizations. From a critical user perspective, the only reason for using coercion to require mental health treatment is that the individuals are in a state where they are an immediate danger to themselves and/or their surroundings. This articles aims, first, to provide an overview of research studies concerning the benefits or harmfulness of involuntary treatment after coerced admission and, second, to evaluate studies that try to compare involuntary with voluntary treatment. A systematic overview of studies of compulsory mental health care with regard to treatment criteria, coercion in mental health, and involuntary admission published over the last decade was examined in detail, along with a secondary manual search of references cited in identified publications. Few studies have been conducted on the effect of compulsory mental health care, and the results have been contradictory. More randomized studies are needed to document the kinds of effects that the use of compulsory treatment has on treatment results. Another issue that needs further examination is whether the use of coercion should be transferred to legal bodies with an adjudicatory process.     

Criteria for designation of mental health professional shortage areas--PHS. Final rule

This final rule amends the existing regulations governing the criteria for designation of health manpower shortage areas, or HMSAs (now health professional shortage areas, or HPSAs; name changed by Public Law 101-597, the National Health Service Corps Revitalization Amendments of 1990) under section 332 of the Public Health Service Act. Specifically, this amendment revises the existing criteria for designation of HMSAs having shortages of psychiatric manpower, transforming them into criteria for designation of HPSAs having shortages of mental health professionals, to take into account not only psychiatrists but also mental health service providers other than psychiatrists. The intended effect of this amendment is to more accurately assess the supply of mental health service providers when making shortage area determinations. This notice also summarizes the comments received by the Department on the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published on August 8, 1989, which set forth the proposed methodology for making this and other changes to the HMSA criteria. It also formally changes "HMSA" to "HPSA" throughout the regulation, to conform with Public Law 101-597.     

Investigators' and judges' opinions about civil commitment

As part of our work with the Oregon Task Force on Civil Commitment, we surveyed the judges and commitment investigators involved in the state's involuntary treatment program. In Oregon the investigators recommend whether or not a commitment hearing should be held. These mental health professionals indicated that current confidentiality laws restrict their access to important information. The investigators also expressed concern about the lack of resources with which to divert clients out of the commitment system. Judges too felt that relaxing the rules of evidence would improve the quality of commitment hearings. Regarding changes in the system, investigators and judges indicated that outpatient treatment (including compliance with medications) should be required of committed patients. These professionals noted that involuntary outpatient treatment could only be enforced if the system included a mechanism for hospitalizing patients who were noncompliant. Although the investigators believed commitment criteria should be broadened so that their clients could receive treatment before becoming dangerous, judges did not generally endorse this view. We discuss the implications of these findings for new civil commitment legislation.     

Therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health tribunals: changing patterns of demand and its impact

For decades the mental health system has been ‘in crisis,’ with too little funding, too much demand and fragmented services. In England and Wales, decisions made concerning the care and treatment of those suffering from a mental disorder is governed by the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended) (MHA 1983). Detention under the legislation is fraught with conflict; patient and clinical views are often at odds. Mental health tribunals enable patients to seek a review of their case and the legality of their detention. This paper argues that with the increased use of formal detention under the MHA 1983, the caseloads of mental health tribunals have similarly risen. Whether it is possible to advance therapeutic benefit to psychiatric patients attending tribunals is open to question. While mental health tribunals have a role to play in generating a positive psychological impact on an applicant, there is a risk that time and resource pressures may inhibit the adoption of a therapeutic approach. This paper considers the key drivers that are currently pushing detention rates up, the impact this is having on mental health tribunal caseloads and whether it is possible to bring therapeutic jurisprudence to the patient.     

A population at risk: civil commitment of substance abusers after Kansas v. Hendricks

In its 1997 decision, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court radically changed the face of civil commitment. In finding the Kansas Sexually Violent Predators Act constitutional, the Court liberalized the first constitutional requirement for involuntary commitment from "mental illness" to a much broader "mental abnormality" standard, without correspondingly restricting the second requirement of dangerousness. The decision essentially authorizes states to civilly commit a broad range of individuals without sufficient due process protections. This Comment explores the possibilities for expansion of civil commitment in the wake of Hendricks. It argues that the holding was unjustifiably broad, focusing in particular on the potential danger facing substance abusers. In conclusion, it offers several suggestions for mitigating the potential misuse of this dangerous precedent.     

Unfitness for Detention Among Arrestees with Suspected Mental Disorders in Paris,France

In this retrospective study (11/2013–04/2014), we aimed to identify the factors associated with psychiatric hospitalization among detainees in police custody. We included 137 patients (M/F, 74%/26%; median age, 37 years), and 125 (91%) had a mental disorder. Seventy‐seven patients (56%) had involuntary hospitalization. Sixty patients (44%) were declared fit for detention, and 48 (80%) of these patients had a mental disorder. All patients who required urgent psychiatric care and could not provide valid consent for care were declared as requiring involuntary hospitalization. Forty‐nine of the 62 patients (79%) who required urgent psychiatric care and were suspected to have committed serious crimes were involuntarily admitted. In conclusion, we commonly found that some individuals with mental disorders were considered fit for detention in police cells.     

Suicide and civil commitment

The contemporary approach to suicide prevention relies primarily on involuntary commitment of the suicidal individual. While there is generally widespread acceptance of the principle of society's right, even its moral obligation, to intervene to prevent a suicide, there is much less agreement concerning the conditions under which such an action should proceed. Most of the debate centers on the widely applied commitment criteria of mental illness and dangerousness to self and others. Questions have also been raised regarding the efficacy of commitment as a preventive measure. In this paper, these controversies are placed in a broader historical context. We examine empirical evidence concerning prevailing commitment criteria and the prophylactic value of involuntary hospitalization, and discuss the appropriateness of our current approach to civil commitment in light of existing data.     

Civil commitment in Turkey: reflections on a bill drafted by psychiatrists

Involuntary hospitalization of the mentally ill has been an issue that still remains outside the judicial system in Turkey. Despite the new Turkish Civil Code, which includes several articles relevant to involuntary psychiatric hospital admissions, there still appears to be a need for a comprehensive mental health law to address specific issues concerning civil commitment of the mentally ill. As a result of the lack of specific statutory regulation, an insufficient number of psychiatric hospital beds and limited appreciation of the safety risks involved in untreated mental illness, involuntary hospitalization remains an underutilized option by psychiatrists and the courts alike. In response to its concerned members, the Psychiatric Association of Turkey has appointed a task force to draft a proposed mental health law, entitled the "Psychiatric Patients' Bill of Rights." Although the draft suggests a model with emphasis on the right to psychiatric treatment, it also recommends close judicial oversight to prevent potential abuses of discretion by the system. However, this might present logistic problems in a country with already overburdened courts. Authors discuss the highlights of the draft within the context of Turkey's current cultural, social and judicial structure, and compare it to similar laws of other countries.     

Why we must end insurance discrimination against mental health care

In this Policy Essay, Representative Patrick Kennedy argues that insurance discrimination against those suffering from mental illness constitutes a serious and often overlooked deficiency of the modern American health care system. While the Mental Health Parity Act of 1996 was an important step toward resolutions of this issue, many loopholes remain that allow insurance companies to deny much-needed coverage to those suffering from such illnesses. This Essay details how improving access to health insurance for the mentally ill is not only socially beneficial, but also economically sound; the cost of instituting mental health parity is far outweighed by the costs that employers bear because of the reduced productivity of untreated mental illness sufferers. Representative Kennedy recommends that these problems may be addressed by additional mental health policy legislation--specifically, the proposed Paul Wellstone Act.     

Attitudes among medical and law students toward decision-making in regard to involuntary psychiatric hospitalization

Background

The management of individuals with mental illnesses sometimes requires involuntary hospitalization. The Israel Mental Health Act requires that cases of involuntary psychiatric hospitalization (IPH) be periodically reviewed by the district psychiatric committee. The discussion in the committee often leads to debate regarding the need for an IPH potentially depriving the patient of his freedom. Little is known about the way in which the psychiatrists and attorneys on these committees arrive at their decisions. The present study was designed to examine the views of future doctors and attorneys concerning cases of possible IPH to determine whether their decisions would be influenced by their respective professional educational backgrounds.

Methods

After compiling demographic data, we asked 170 students from each of the two disciplines what their decision would be in two hypothetical cases that dealt with the question of a prolongation of a psychiatric hospitalization. Questionnaires examining social distance and possible stigmatizing views concerning psychiatric patients were also distributed and collected.

Results

The response rates for the medical and law students were, respectively, 90% and 85%. We found no differences between the medical and law students regarding their views on prolongation of a psychiatric hospitalization. This was consistent regardless of whether the hospitalization was against the patient's will or according to his wish and against the treating physicians' advice. We also found that the medical and law students had similar general views regarding psychiatric patients, but that the latter evidenced greater social distance than the former.

Conclusions

Academic background and socialization were not found to influence the decisions of students regarding IPH. Educational programs and exposure to psychiatric patients during law studies are proposed to lessen psychiatric stigma and promote better understanding between members of the two disciplines.     

Treating the vulnerable in England and Wales: the impact of law reform and changing policy

This article considers the role of treatment in the provision of mental health care in England and Wales. The current legislative position with regard to the making of treatment choices following compulsory commitment will be examined. Consideration will also be given to the position of the informal hospitalised patient, as in the case of R v. Bournewood Community and Mental Health NHS Trust, ex parte L and finally, the role of the common law in establishing (in)capacity in relation to the non-consensual provision of treatment for physical conditions. Attention will then be given to the reform process, which is currently ongoing in England and Wales, and its likely impact on treatment provision. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 received Royal Assent on the 7th April 2005, while the draft Mental Health Bill 2004 underwent detailed examination by the Joint Scrutiny Committee, a report of which was published on the 23rd March 2005. On the 13th July 2005 the British Government outlined its response following the publication of the Scrutiny Committee's recommendations and despite it accepting many of the recommendations put forward, some significant areas of concern remain making the draft Mental Health Bill 2004 "a long way from acceptable legislation".     

'The necessity must be convincingly shown to exist': standards for compulsory treatment for mental disorder under the Mental Health Act 1983

Current English law has few controls on the involuntary treatment of persons detained under the Mental Health Act 1983. In 2001, R (Wilkinson) v. Broadmoor Special Hospital Authority provided some hope that, in conjunction with the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), meaningful substantive and procedural standards for compulsory psychiatric treatment might be developed, but that hope has not been fulfilled. Using Wilkinson and the ECHR jurisprudence as a starting point, this article considers when, if at all, compulsory psychiatric treatment might be justified. In particular, it considers the difference between the 'appropriateness' standard of the English legislation and the ECHR requirement of 'therapeutic necessity', the requirements for appropriate procedure and appropriate legislative clarity, how the courts should deal with disagreements among treating physicians, and the relevance of the capacity and best interests of the detained person.     

Autonomy, guardianship and mental disorder: one problem, two solutions

The law in England and Wales governing both the provision of medical care in the case of adults with incapacity and the provision of care and treatment for mental disorder presents serious problems for the principle of patient autonomy. The adult with incapacity has no competence either to consent to or refuse medical treatment but the law provides no statutory structure for substitute decision making on that adult's behalf. On the other hand the law does allow a person with mental disorder to be treated for that disorder despite his or her competent refusal. The nature of these inconsistencies is considered and the implications which flow from the singling out of mental disorder are examined with reference to experience in two Australian jurisdictions. The current proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act are then considered in the light of the conclusions drawn.     

精神障碍医学鉴定制度设计及相关问题探究

《精神卫生法》对于精神病人合法权益的保障、社会安全防卫作用的实现具有重要意义,其不仅能为精神病患者和监护人提供非自愿住院治疗的救济渠道,在一定程度上避免“被精神病”现象的发生,同时能够保障社会公共秩序和社会公众人身安全.在对精神障碍医学鉴定的制度设计及作用进行分析的基础之上,正确辨析精神障碍医学鉴定的实施主体以及管理模式、并对精神障碍医学鉴定的实施主体、要求、委托主体等有关内容进行阐述,以期为精神障碍医学鉴定制度的良性运行提供保障.     

Characteristics of female patients admitted to an adolescent secure forensic psychiatric hospital

Bluebird House is the only mixed gender NHS secure forensic psychiatric hospital for adolescents in the South of England. It has admitted more than 30 female patients since the service opened in 2008. The admission criteria are that patients must be detained under the Mental Health Act and present evidence of being a risk of harm to others. This article describes the clinical characteristics of 30 consecutive female patients admitted to a highly specialised adolescent forensic inpatient service. Key results include a very high rate of incidents of risk behaviours exhibited by female patients within the unit but good clinical outcomes. The majority of patients had severe symptoms of mental disorder, especially emotional instability, self-harm behaviours and aggressive behaviours. Few had diagnoses of mental illness. Assessment findings from the Millon Adolescent Clinical Inventory and the Structured Assessment of Violence Risk are discussed, as are parallel with studies from other female secure services.     

Reforming the Mental Health Act 1983: an approved social worker perspective

The government green paper, 'Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983', was published in November 1999, for consultation by end of March 2000. This article offers comment on the operation of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the proposals for change, from an approved social worker perspective. Under the Mental Health Act 1983, approved social workers undertake social assessments of mental health crises, deciding upon the need for compulsory admission and treatment. To the debate on legislative change they bring a detailed social perspective on the processes and outcomes of statutory mental health intervention. Approved social workers' main concerns relate to the social context of mental health need, the availability of social resources, civil liberties, protections for people subject to statutory mental health interventions and the effective regulation of practice and services. Current proposals include options that would significantly reduce approved social worker involvement in decisions about compulsory admission and treatment; the implications of this are discussed.