Outpatient commitment and procedural due process

Player, Candice T.

doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.01.013

Cited by 6 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Studies consistently show that tribunals are dominated by medical expertise with medical evidence carrying the most weight in decision‐making about compulsory treatment (Ferencz & McGuire, ; Ferlauto & Frierson, ; Livingston et al, ; Murphy et al, ; Ng et al, ; Player, ; Richardson & Machin, ; Ridley et al, ; Swain, ) . Carers have criticised a tribunal system in Scotland that reinforces hierarchies of opinion found in the psychiatric system more broadly (Ridley et al, ).…”

Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Individuals in forensic settings in New Zealand expressed their disagreement with assessments of dangerousness, with complaints that this was overemphasised in some cases (Ng et al, ). In addition, a study based in New York found that decisions about assertive outreach treatment were based upon a history of non‐compliance, clinical testimony regarding insight, the need for treatment and histories of risk to others and self‐harm (Player, ). Furthermore, extra‐legal factors affecting tribunal decision‐making in Victoria have been challenged for reinforcing stereotypical value judgments as opposed to being based on evidence (Freckelton, ).…”

Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature

Macgregor

Brown

Stavert

2019

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Mental health tribunals are responsible for making decisions about compulsory treatment for individuals considered a risk to themselves and others due to mental disorder. They are generally designed to provide safeguards for individuals subject to compulsory treatment by testing whether national legislative criteria and international human rights standards have been met. Despite this, they have been criticised for being dominated by the medical domain, focusing rigidly on legal criteria and for restricting human rights, including the rights to liberty and access to justice. As a result, questions have arisen over the extent to which mental health tribunals are indeed operating in line with their legislative intentions and international human rights requirements. The aim of this systematic review was to synthesise international evidence on this and to assess the extent to which this is reflected in such literature. A

show abstract

Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Analysis and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature

Macgregor

Brown

Stavert

2019

Health Soc Care Community

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cette interface participe également au maintien de l'hégémonie du discours biomédical en limitant bien souvent l'offre de soins et de services au régime pharmacologique. [12,[44][45][46][47][48] L'adhésion de la personne à ce régime s'ajoute à la nécessité d'atteindre différentes normes de performances idéalisées et a pour effet de consolider (1) la tendance des systèmes de soutien à médicaliser toute problématique vécue par la personne [80] et (2) les situations d'inégalité et d'iniquité sociales touchant les personnes aux prises avec une problématique de santé mentale et limitant de ce fait leurs opportunités d'action [81]. A contrario, il est utile de préciser que certaines études recensées évoquent différents effets positifs de l'autorisation judiciaire de soins sur le rétablissement des personnes visées par cette mesure, notamment en raison de son caractère déterminant afi n d'instaurer un cadre à l'action et d'assurer une reprise du contrôle sur sa propre vie.…”

Section: Implications Pour La Pratique Soignanteunclassified

Une analyse critique des effets de l’autorisation judiciaire de soins sur la dynamique relationnelle entre la personne visée et ses systèmes de soutien

Pariseau‐Legault¹,

Goulet²,

Crocker³

2019

aporia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

L’autorisation judiciaire de soins se situe au carrefour de considérations cliniques et juridiques. Malgré une efficacité contestée, des études récentes démontrent une augmentation du recours à cette mesure d’exception à l’échelle internationale. La présente analyse est inspirée d’une rencontre des théories foucaldienne et goffmanienne. Elle s’appuie sur les résultats d’une méta-ethnographie visant à mieux saisir les enjeux associés à ses usages, à partir des points de vue des acteurs impliqués lors de son application. Les résultats de cette analyse critique de discours décrivent l’autorisation judiciaire de soin en tant que jeu de rôle complexe ayant des effets multiples sur l’identité de la personne visée et sur ses rapports sociaux. À l’ère d’une justice souvent décrite par sa force thérapeutique, ces observations soulèvent plusieurs questionnements à l’égard de la visée et des effets de l’autorisation judiciaire de soins sur la personne, ainsi que de ses usages par différents intervenants du domaine de la santé et des services sociaux.

show abstract

“…Perhaps surprisingly, studies have suggested that rather than strictly applying dangerousness standards to their release decisions, judges may actually follow more of a parens patriae approach, taking into account patients’ treatment needs, the availability of community-based services [ 12 ], and the impact on families of premature discharges [ 13 ]. Moreover, even in dangerousness-based determinations, judges frequently defer to medical recommendations [ 12 , 14 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Balancing autonomy and beneficence at the time of psychiatric discharge

Jain¹,

Appelbaum²

2018

Isr J Health Policy Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As in much of the world, mental health law in Israel has evolved over the past half-century toward greater protection of patients’ liberty and an increased emphasis on due process. Part of that process in Israel involved taking decisions about prolonged involuntary hospitalization out of the hands of treating psychiatrists and turning them over to independent review panels. Argo and colleagues examined outcomes of discharge decisions made by these panels compared with treating psychiatrists. In this brief commentary, we describe related trends in mental health law in other countries, especially the U.S., consider countervailing perspectives on the role of review panels, and suggest how the Argo et al. study might be followed up with additional research.

show abstract

Outpatient commitment and procedural due process

Cited by 6 publications

References 22 publications

Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature

Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature

Une analyse critique des effets de l’autorisation judiciaire de soins sur la dynamique relationnelle entre la personne visée et ses systèmes de soutien

Balancing autonomy and beneficence at the time of psychiatric discharge

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About