Why community compulsion became the solution - Reforming mental health law in Sweden

The aim of this article is to understand how compulsory community care (CCC) has become a solution in mental health policy in so many different legal and social contexts during the last 20 years. The recent introduction of CCC in Sweden is used as a case in point, which is then contrasted against the processes in Norway, England/Wales and New York State.In Sweden, the issue of CCC was initiated following high-profile acts of violence. Contrary to several other states, there was agreement about the (lack of) evidence about its effectiveness. Rather than focusing on dangerousness, the government proposal about CCC was framed within an ideology of integrating the disabled. The new legislation allowed for a broad range of measures to control patients at the same time as it was presented as a means to protect positive rights for patients. Compared to previous legislation in Sweden, the scope of social control has remained largely the same, although the rationale has changed — from medical treatment via community treatment and rehabilitation, to reducing the risk of violence, and then shifting back to rehabilitation in the community.The Swedish approach to CCC is similar to Norway, while New York and England/Wales have followed different routes. Differences in ideology, social control and rights orientations can be understood with reference to the general welfare and care regimes that characterize the four states.     

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.