Objective and Reasonable? Scrutinising Compulsory Mental Health Interventions from a Non-discrimination Perspective

Bibliographic Data

ID16764630
AuthorsA Nilsson (0000-0002-9780-7876, Lund University, corresponding author)
Year2014
Volume14
Issue3
Pages459-485
Publication date2014-09-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueHuman Rights Law Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1461-7781 • E-ISSN: 1744-1021
PublisherOxford University Press (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1093/hrlr/ngu022
OpenAlexW2155044491
LanguageEN
Citations received4

Is there a right to reject mental health care, or may such care be imposed against your will? Human rights law, developed prior to the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), answered this question with clear authorisations of compulsory interventions under certain circumstances: in essence, when the person has a psychosocial diagnosis, is perceived as in need of medical treatment, is unwilling to accept treatment, and/or is at risk of self-harm or harm to others. Taken at face value, the CRPD is radically different. The treaty text neither authorises nor prohibits compulsory interventions. Instead, references to equal treatment set the standard for what is lawful. This article explores the normative content of this standard, and argues that compulsory interventions need to be relevant, necessary and proportionate. It assesses States Parties’ mental health laws against these criteria, and discusses key challenges for them to comply with the CRPD.

Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities · Harm · Human rights · Mental health · Normative · Perspective (graphical) · Political science · Psychiatry · Psychological intervention · Psychosocial · Treaty · Child Welfare and Adoption · Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints · Law · Mental Health Treatment and Access · Psychology

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub