End Coercion in Mental Health Services—Toward a System Based on Support Only

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Based on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), several UN bodies, among them the High Commissioner for Human Rights, have argued for a complete ban of all coercive interventions in mental health care. The authors conceptualize a system for mental health care based on support only. Psychiatry loses its function as an agent of social control and follows the will and preferences of those who require support. The authors draw up scenarios for dealing with risk, inpatient care, police custody, and mental illness in prison. With such a shift, mental health services could earn the trust of service users and thereby improve treatment outcomes.

Related collections

Most cited references 13

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Reversing hard won victories in the name of human rights: a critique of the General Comment on Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Melvyn Freeman, Kavitha Kolappa, Jose de Almeida … (2015)

The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is a major milestone in safeguarding the rights of persons with disabilities. However, the General Comment on Article 12 of the CRPD threatens to undermine critical rights for persons with mental disabilities, including the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health, access to justice, the right to liberty, and the right to life. Stigma and discrimination might also increase. Much hinges on the Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities' view that all persons have legal capacity at all times irrespective of mental status, and hence involuntary admission and treatment, substitute decision-making, and diversion from the criminal justice system are deemed indefensible. The General Comment requires urgent consideration with the full participation of practitioners and a broad range of user and family groups.

0 comments Cited 67 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The EUNOMIA project on coercion in psychiatry: study design and preliminary data.

Lars Kjellin, Andrzej Kiejna, Francisco Núñez de Cáceres González … (2005)

Previous national research has shown significant variation in several aspects of coercive treatment measures in psychiatry. The EUNOMIA project, an international study funded by the European Commission, aims to assess the clinical practice of these measures and their outcomes. Its naturalistic and epidemiological design is being implemented at 13 centres in 12 European countries. This article describes the design of the study and provides preliminary data on the catchment areas, staff, available facilities and modalities of care at the participating centres.

0 comments Cited 36 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

“Capacity”, “best interests”, “will and preferences” and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities

George Szmukler (2019)

The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the most up-to-date international legal instrument concerning the rights of persons with disabilities. Such persons are taken to include those with serious mental disorders. According to an authoritative interpretation of a crucial Article (Article 12 - Equal recognition before the law) by the UN CRPD Committee, involuntary detention and treatment of people with mental health disabilities are prohibited under the Convention. Both conventional mental health law and "capacity-based" law are deemed to violate the Convention. However, some other UN bodies are not in full agreement (for example, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), while others are less explicitly absolutist (for example, the Human Rights Council). Furthermore, strong criticisms of the position of the CRPD Committee have been mounted from a number of academic quarters. These criticisms center on whether the role of a person's ability to make a decision can be ignored, no matter the circumstances. Much of the above debate turns on the concept of "legal capacity" and the now often-repeated precept that one must always respect the "will and preferences" of the person with a disability. However, "will and preferences" remains undefined. In this paper, I offer an analysis of "will and preferences" that can clarify interventions that may be acceptable or non-acceptable under the terms of the UN Convention.