header-logo header-logo

15 December 2023 / Laura Davidson
Issue: 8053 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

The mental health paradigm

151428
Laura Davidson asks if new UN guidance could topple compulsory detention & enforced medical treatment
  • Covers guidance issued by the World Health Organisation and the UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.
  • Suggests it may help end practices of coercion and compulsory treatment, and could have a stronger impact than international human rights law.

A quarter of a century ago, the UK ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). It prohibits discrimination, including against those with ‘mental… [or] intellectual impairments’ (Art 1). Despite being binding, global compliance remains patchy. However, all psychiatric coercion—compulsory hospitalisation, physical and chemical restraint, seclusion and segregation—is discriminatory and hence unlawful.

The European Court of Human Rights deems psychiatric force lawful if necessary and proportionate, the least restrictive option and a last resort. The UK’s 40-year-old Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983) permits coercion to protect someone’s health or safety, or others (s 2(2) and s 3(2)). Restraint (which may cause death) and seclusion (a recognised form of torture)

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll