Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2010
  • Online publication date: February 2011

6 - Treatment for a mental disorder: a case apart?

Summary

For many years, the law relating to treatment for a mental disorder has constituted an anomaly within legal systems which purport to privilege and protect the individual's right of autonomy. In many jurisdictions, including England and Wales, Australia, Ireland and New Zealand, mental health legislation limits the right of patients to make decisions in respect of treatment for their mental disorder, regardless of their capacity. Unsurprisingly, this differential treatment of people with mental disorders has attracted criticism from a range of perspectives. Indeed, as discussed in Chapter 1, critiques emanating from the ‘anti-psychiatry movement’ were part of the impetus for the move to an autonomy-based approach to healthcare decision-making more generally. As with the position in respect of people lacking capacity which was discussed in Chapter 5, there has been a significant shift towards more rights-based legal discourse in respect of people with a mental disorder. People with mental disorders come within the ambit of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). Additionally, non-binding instruments setting out specific protections for the rights of patients with mental disorders have been adopted at United Nations and European levels. However, as will be seen below, it is unlikely that any of these human rights instruments will require a substantive reversal of the differential approach taken to the right of autonomy.

This chapter explores the legal and normative framework within which decisions about treatment for a mental disorder are made.

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Thornicroft, G., Shunned: Discrimination Against People With Mental Illness (Oxford University Press, 2007)
Fennell, P., Treatment Without Consent: Law, Psychiatry and the Treatment of Mentally Disordered People Since 1845 (London: Routledge, 1995)
Bartlett, P. and Sandland, R., Mental Health Law: Policy and Practice (3rd edn) (Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 278–8
Fennell, P., Mental Health: The New Law (Bristol: Jordans, 2007), pp. 67–9
Perlin, M., (‘“Half-Wracked Prejudice Leaped Forth”: Sanism, Pretextuality, and Why and How Mental Disability Law Developed as it Did’ (1999) 10 Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 3
Winick, B., The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment (Washington DC: American Psychological Association, 1997), Chapter 19
Gutterman, J., ‘Waging a War on Drugs: Administering a Lethal Dose to Kendra's Law’ (2000) 68 Fordham Law Review 2401
Perlin, M., ‘Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Outpatient Commitment Law: Kendra's Law as Case Study’ (2003) 9 Psychology, Public Policy & Law 183
Winick, B., ‘The Right to Refuse Mental Health Treatment: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Analysis’ (1994) 17 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 99, 104–5
Winick, B., Civil Commitment: A Therapeutic Jurisprudence Model (Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, 2005)
Perlin, M.A Law of Healing’ (2000) 68 University of Cincinnati Law Review 407
Sedgwick, P., Psychopolitics (London: Pluto Press, 1982)
Carney, T., ‘The Mental Health Service Crisis of Neoliberalism: An Antipodean Perspective’ (2008) 31 International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 101, 103–4
Eastman, N., ‘Mental Health Law: Civil Liberties and the Principle of Reciprocity’ (1994) 308 British Medical Journal 43
,Mental Health CommissionAnnual Report 2008 (Dublin: Mental Health Commission, 2009), p. 85–88
Banerjee, S.The Use of Antipsychotic Medication for People With Dementia: Time for Action (London: Department of Health, 2009), p. 20