Citation

Duffy RM, Kelly BD. Int. J. Law Psychiatry 2017; 54: 26-35.

Affiliation

Trinity College Dublin, Department of Psychiatry, Trinity Centre for Health Sciences, Tallaght Hospital, Tallaght, Dublin D24 NR0A, Ireland.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Elsevier Publishing)

DOI

10.1016/j.ijlp.2017.07.003

PMID

28962684

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Good mental health legislation is essential for ensuring high quality mental health care and protecting human rights. Many countries are attempting to bring mental health legislation in line with the UN - Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability (UN-CRPD). The UN-CRPD requires policy-makers to rethink the 'medical model' of mental illness and existing laws. It also challenges WHO guidelines on drafting mental health law, described in the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation (WHO-RB). AIMS: This study examines the relationship between the UN-CRPD and the WHO-RB.

METHODS: It compares the documents, highlighting similarities and identifying areas of disagreement. The WHO-RB contains a checklist of human rights standards it recommends are met at national level. This study analyses each component on this checklist and identifies the relevant sections in the UN-CRPD that pertain to each.

RESULTS: Both the UN-CRPD and WHO-RB address more than just acute exacerbations of illness, providing guidelines on, inter alia, treatment, education, occupation and housing. They are patient-centred and strongly influenced by social rights. The UN-CRPD, however, gives just superficial consideration to the management of acute illness, forensic and risk issues, and does little to identify the role of family and carers.

CONCLUSION: The UN-CRPD has evolved from disability research and strong advocacy organisations. Careful consideration is needed to enable it to address the specific needs encountered in mental illness. Both the UN-CRPD and WHO-RB highlight common tensions that must be resolved by clinicians, and provide some guidance for stakeholders who commonly need to observe one principle at the expense of another.

Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Language: en

Keywords

Forensic psychiatry; Human rights; Jurisprudence; Psychiatry