Individual Rights versus Societal Protection - Interface between Law and Psychiatry

Abstract

ABSTRACT People with mental illness are entitled to fair treatment, and they should be treated with respect and dignity, have their privacy protected, receive services appropriate for their age and culture and should be made understand treatment options and alternatives. They are to be given care that does not discriminate on the basis of age, race, or type of illness. People living with mental health conditions have the right for liberty and autonomy to make decisions about their lives, including their treatment. In rare cases where an individual is considered an imminent danger to self or others, he or she has the right to due process, adequate representation, and appeals should there be civil commitment or involuntary treatment procedures. With Advance directives, they have the right to refuse medication and that medication may not be imposed involuntarily unless rigorous standards and cumbersome procedures are met with. They are given protection from seclusion and restraint, and have the right for community inclusion and access to services. They are also exempted from punishments through ‘Insanity Defence” provisions in the criminal laws. Lot many changes occurred in the attitude of the people and governments which is reflected through International Covenants and National laws including the recent Mental Healthcare Act of India. Most of them are Pro-human rights laws. If these developments are looked from Societal perspective, will these really prove to be beneficial or counterproductive? Isn’t there any risk of regression to those pre-modern days of wandering dangerous lunatics, who might harm themselves or some innocents in the community. The paradigm shift seems to be from “Shackled patients” to “No shackles” to the present state of “Shackled mental health professionals”.