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。     

The Law and Incapacity Determinations: A Conflict of Governance?

This article will consider the highly charged questions raised by two major sets of law reforms in England and Wales, the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Health Act 2007, which, although applying to closely related clinical populations, proceeded along entirely separate legislative paths. By justifying its proposals for reform of mental health legislation on the grounds of 'risk', the Government failed to take into account the implications of enforced treatment on patients who may retain decision-making capacity.     

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.     

The nearest relative in the Mental Health Act 2007: still an illusionary and inconsistent safeguard?

Abstract

The role of nearest relative (NR) is intended as a safeguard in the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended in 2007) to curb the excesses of professional discretion and protect patients from unwarranted compulsory hospitalisation. It is unique to the mental health compulsory detention process in England and Wales. There are, however, evident tensions in the role and a lack of clarity surrounding the precise functions of the NR. There is also some uncertainty and confusion among practitioners about the scope of the NR involvement, and government plans announced recently to review mental health legislation will include a focus on the role of family and carers in the care of detained patients. Despite long-standing concerns about the role, there is remarkably little published research available to date on its use and effectiveness, in so far as evaluating the extent to which it provides an adequate safeguard for patients, as intended by the legislation. This article will briefly explore the background to the role, highlight some of the difficulties and tensions within it and conclude with some observations about where further research and reform may be needed to provide greater protection and clarity for patients, relatives and health and social care practitioners.     

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.     

Psychological models of mental disorder, human rights, and compulsory mental health care in the community

Recent amendments to the 1983 Mental Health Act in the UK (Mental Health Act 2007) include the controversial provision for: “supervised treatment in the community for suitable patients following an initial period of detention and treatment in hospital”. This provision is widespread, and more formal, in other English-speaking jurisdictions. Reviews of the international literature, human rights considerations and the perspective of psychological approaches to mental health care suggest that proposed ‘supervised community treatment orders’ are valuable, lawful, and compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights if certain specific conditions are met. Provisions for ‘supervised community treatment orders’ in the UK should be supported, but with the provisos that: the powers of the Mental Health Act are limited as in Scotland, to persons whose “ability to make decisions about the provision of [care] is significantly impaired”, that each order is time-limited and subject to review by a properly constituted Tribunal, and that the use of such orders should represent a benefit to people in terms of more appropriate treatment, or be a least restrictive alternative, or better preserve the person's private and family life.     

Detention under the Mental Health Act: balancing rights,risks and needs for services

Mental health law has to balance considerations of both justice, and health and welfare. In the political climate of the 1990s mental health services have become targeted on those with serious mental illness, to address the objectives of containing risks and limiting service expenditure. This paper identifies that increasing rates of detention under the Mental Health Act through the 1990s in a particular region, disproportionately involve longer-term detentions (under section 3), men, and people with serious mental illnesses. Those detained are likely to experience social difficulties. Changes in legislation are imminent, and the paper concludes that thought should be given to the amount of statutory intervention in the lives of seriously mentally ill people, and to the principle of reciprocity in relation to those coerced for lesser periods. Services should seek to address the issues of social exclusion which are reflected in the circumstances of those detained.     

The age of risk: risk perception and determination following the Mental Health Act 2007

Reforms to the mental health law framework for England and Wales, which were introduced by the Mental Health Act 2007, are now having a practical effect on day-to-day mental health decision-making. The 2007 Act amends the Mental Health Act 1983, which governs the compulsory hospitalisation and treatment of people with mental disorder; and represents the culmination of a protracted and controversial reform process which has spanned much of the last 15 years. One of the key foci in the 2007 Act is the question of the risk posed by the patient, primarily to others; a result of both the social and political impetus behind the reform process and mounting public anxiety at the management of the mentally disordered. The new Act seeks, as with past legislation, to find the elusive balance between protecting and facilitating the individual's autonomy while also providing an effective framework for the wider public right to protection. The 2007 Act solidifies the dominance of risk by providing a legitimating framework in which risk can be assessed, monitored, and managed. This attitudinal change is demonstrated by the gradual and almost insidious adoption of risk terminology within the practical decision-making setting and the increasing use of risk assessment and management tools. This article is informed by an empirical study which examined individual professional and institutional responses to the mental health legislation in relation to risk. It examines whether the amended legislative framework amplifies risk as an increasingly dominant concern within decision-making. The paper then goes on to consider how decision-makers use risk to assist with their daily roles. Extrapolated from data obtained through the study, several models of risk determination are then discussed. Finally, some thought is given to whether the extension of the risk concept has the potential to become more fundamental within the organisation and legitimisation of mental health care.     

强制治疗精神疾病患者的程序法研究——基于国内六部地方性法规的实证分析

对精神疾病患者实施强制治疗程序包括强制送治程序和强制治疗程序,由于该程序涉及到对人身自由的限制,应该严格遵循法治行政的原则。不过,国内各地所制定的六部精神卫生条例,赋予该程序的法根据并不充足;同时,程序法上的规定也并非十分完善。因此,我国应该尽快制定《精神卫生法》,详细规定强制治疗的程序,为保障精神疾病患者的权益提供坚实的法律根据。     

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.     

论精神障碍患者强制住院异议机制的完善

以维护精神障碍患者的合法权益为立法宗旨、经过27年反复斟酌的《精神卫生法》终于出台，填补了精神卫生领域立法的空白，也将人权保障写入法律。精神障碍患者以自愿住院为原则，强制住院为补充，减少了“被精神病”的发生，但是对于强制住院的异议机制规定甚少且可操作性不强，不利于维护精神障碍患者的权利。在借鉴国外精神障碍强制住院异议制度的基础上，从提出异议的主体、异议机构以及异议程序方面，结合我国国情，对强制住院异议机制进行完善。     

《精神卫生法》对“被精神病”现象规制之评析

摘要在防止“被精神病”问题上，新出台的《精神卫生法》围绕“送、诊、治”三个环节及再次诊断和鉴定等程序作了较为详尽的规定，但仍存在一些不足。通过对其深入剖析，提出进一步完善强制送治制度、诊断制度、强制住院治疗制度及出院制度的建议。     

Implementing the Mental Health Act 2007 in British general practice: Lessons from Ireland

Changes in mental health legislation (e.g. Mental Health Act 2007 in England and Wales, Mental Health Act 2001 in Ireland) have generally improved adherence to international human rights standards, but also present challenges to primary care providers. When mental health legislation was substantially reformed in Ireland, 62.9% of general practitioners (GPs) felt the new legislation was not user-friendly. Majorities of GPs who felt the legislation affected their practice reported increased workloads (85%) and various other difficulties (53%). GPs who had received training about the legislation were more likely to find it user-friendly (43% versus 30.9%), and informal training (e.g. from colleagues) was just as likely as formal training to be associated with a GP finding it user-friendly. With similar changes to mental health legislation being introduced in England and Wales, it is significant that informal training is just as good as formal training in helping GPs work with new mental health legislation.     

Mental health legislation and human rights in England, Wales and the Republic of Ireland

In 2005, the World Health Organization (WHO) published its Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation (Geneva: WHO) presenting a detailed statement of human rights issues which need to be addressed in national legislation relating to mental health. The purpose of this paper is to determine the extent to which revised mental health legislation in England, Wales (2007) and Ireland (2001) accords with these standards (excluding standards relating solely to children or mentally-ill offenders).Legislation in England and Wales meets 90 (54.2%) of the 166 WHO standards examined, while legislation in Ireland meets 80 standards (48.2%). Areas of high compliance include definitions of mental disorder, relatively robust procedures for involuntary admission and treatment (although provision of information remains suboptimal) and clarity regarding offences and penalties Areas of medium compliance relate to competence, capacity and consent (with a particular deficit in capacity legislation in Ireland), oversight and review (which exclude long-term voluntary patients and require more robust complaints procedures), and rules governing special treatments, seclusion and restraint. Areas of low compliance relate to promoting rights (impacting on other areas within legislation, such as information management), voluntary patients (especially non-protesting, incapacitated patients), protection of vulnerable groups and emergency treatment. The greatest single deficit in both jurisdictions relates to economic and social rights.There are four key areas in need of rectification and clarification in relation to mental health legislation in England, Wales and Ireland; these relate to (1) measures to protect and promote the rights of voluntary patients; (2) issues relating to competence, capacity and consent (especially in Ireland); (3) the role of “common law” in relation to mental health law (especially in England and Wales); and (4) the extent to which each jurisdiction wishes to protect the economic and social rights of the mentally ill through mental health legislation rather than general legislation.It is hoped that this preliminary analysis of mental health legislation will prompt deeper national audits of mental health and general law as it relates to the mentally ill, performed by multi-disciplinary committees, as recommended by the WHO.     

美国精神卫生制度的发展——兼论我国新《精神卫生法》

美国精神卫生制度的形成经历了从漠视和侵犯人权到尊重和重视人权的发展过程。然而美国现有精神卫生制度领域仍然存在着诸多问题和缺陷,特别体现在医疗服务可获得性缺乏这一问题上。《中华人民共和国精神卫生法》力求在医疗服务可获得性与强制住院之间达到平衡。     

The ‘Hybrid Order’: origins and usage

The hospital direction (Hybrid Order) was inserted into the Mental Health Act (MHA) in 1997 (Crime (Sentences) Act, 1997). It enables higher courts to direct hospital admission for offenders, whilst still imposing a prison sentence. The origins of the ‘Hybrid Order’ and its patterns of usage are examined. Comparisons are made with its Scottish equivalent, Section 59A of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. Both the ‘Hybrid Order’ and Section 59A have been used infrequently. This may reflect the fact that they were strongly resisted on ethical grounds at their point of inception and that they force the psychiatrist into the position of ‘punisher’, rather than ‘treater’. Since the 2007 Amendment of the MHA in England and Wales which expanded the remit of the ‘Hybrid Order’ to include all legal categories of mental disorder, not solely psychopathy, its use has unsurprisingly increased – this article delineates the considerations that need to be given in its recommendation.     

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and Mental Health Law

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) took effect in 2008. This paper discusses a number of flashpoints where the CRPD will require real and significant reconsideration of English mental health and mental capacity law. The CRPD introduces a new paradigm into international disability law, relying on the social model of disability. While that is no doubt a good thing, there is as yet no clear sense as to how that is to be implemented. After providing an introduction to the Convention, the paper considers four specific areas: mental capacity law (focussing on the provisions of the Mental Capacity Act 2005), psychiatric treatment without consent, civil detention of people with mental disabilities, and mental disability in the criminal system (fitness to plead, insanity and diminished responsibility).     

强制医疗程序的实施与反思

＂强制医疗程序＂的＂社会防卫功能＂,不仅受到限制刑事责任能力精神病人和接受过治疗精神病人社会危害性的抑制,还会因＂被精神病＂现象而打折扣。破解此困境需从三方面入手：一是参照《精神卫生法》,将涉嫌犯罪的限制刑事责任能力精神病人,纳入＂非自愿性住院治疗＂范围;二是增加精神病治疗资源投入,强化＂强制医疗＂适用与解除的风险防范意识;三是堵塞《精神卫生法》中＂非自愿性住院治疗＂的漏洞,防止其成为＂被精神病＂新生代的寄生区。     

Involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill: China's 2012 Mental Health Law

The long-awaited Mental Health Law of China was passed on 26 October 2012 and took effect on 1 May 2013. Being the first national legislation on mental health, it establishes a basic legal framework to regulate mental health practice and recognizes the fundamental rights of persons with mental disorders. This article focuses on the system of involuntary detention and treatment of the mentally ill under the new law, which is expected to prevent the so-called “Being misidentified as mentally disordered” cases in China. A systematic examination of the new system demonstrates that the Mental Health Law of China implicitly holds two problematic assumptions and does not provide adequate protection of the fundamental rights of the involuntary patients. Administrative enactments and further national legislative efforts are needed to remedy these flaws in the new law.     

Transfers from prison to hospital under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act between 2011 and 2014

In England and Wales, prisoners with mental disorder of such severity as to warrant inpatient treatment may be transferred to hospital under the Mental Health Act. UK Government guidance recommends that this process should be completed within 14 days; however, evidence suggests that in many cases it can take much longer. This retrospective service evaluation of 64 male prisoners, who were transferred under Section 47 or Section 48, aimed to evaluate transfer durations. The mean time from referral to admission was 76 days. Prisoners with a psychotic disorder were admitted more quickly. Remand prisoners were admitted more quickly than sentenced prisoners. Findings suggest that, in the UK the transfer time of prisoners under Sections 47 and 48 of the Mental Health Act continues to far exceed the 14-day target which raises concern about equivalence of care for prisoners. Our findings support arguments for fundamental amendments to the admissions process.