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

Aisha Macgregor, Michael Brown, Jill Stavert*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

Abstract

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 systematic search of the literature was conducted on the 17 April 2018 for articles published between 2000 and 2018 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science. All study designs were included within this review, provided they reported empirical findings. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight themes were identified across the literature and these were participation, information and understanding, patient representation, the power of the medical domain, feelings of powerlessness, perceptions of fairness, risk and the impact on relationships. The findings call into question whether mental health tribunals necessarily operate in compliance with international human rights standards. This article suggests that mental health tribunals may need to do more to safeguard legislative principles and human rights standards that promote patient autonomy.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)e494-e513
JournalHealth and Social Care in the Community
Volume27
Issue number4
Early online date16 Apr 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 01 Jul 2019

Fingerprint

Mental Health
human rights
mental health
compulsory treatment
Social Justice
mental disorder
Mental Disorders
MEDLINE
fairness
Decision Making
Emotions
autonomy
justice
inclusion
literature
decision making
participation
Therapeutics
science
evidence

Keywords

  • human rights
  • mental health
  • mental health act
  • systematic reviews

Cite this

@article{63c6af715d88453bb0cbba41778eec0c,
title = "Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature",
abstract = "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 systematic search of the literature was conducted on the 17 April 2018 for articles published between 2000 and 2018 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science. All study designs were included within this review, provided they reported empirical findings. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight themes were identified across the literature and these were participation, information and understanding, patient representation, the power of the medical domain, feelings of powerlessness, perceptions of fairness, risk and the impact on relationships. The findings call into question whether mental health tribunals necessarily operate in compliance with international human rights standards. This article suggests that mental health tribunals may need to do more to safeguard legislative principles and human rights standards that promote patient autonomy.",
keywords = "human rights, mental health, mental health act, systematic reviews",
author = "Aisha Macgregor and Michael Brown and Jill Stavert",
year = "2019",
month = "7",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/hsc.12749",
language = "English",
volume = "27",
pages = "e494--e513",
journal = "Health and Social Care in the Community",
issn = "0966-0410",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "4",

}

Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature. / Macgregor, Aisha; Brown, Michael; Stavert, Jill.

In: Health and Social Care in the Community, Vol. 27, No. 4, 01.07.2019, p. e494-e513.

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are mental health tribunals operating in accordance with international human rights standards? A systematic review of the international literature

AU - Macgregor, Aisha

AU - Brown, Michael

AU - Stavert, Jill

PY - 2019/7/1

Y1 - 2019/7/1

N2 - 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 systematic search of the literature was conducted on the 17 April 2018 for articles published between 2000 and 2018 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science. All study designs were included within this review, provided they reported empirical findings. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight themes were identified across the literature and these were participation, information and understanding, patient representation, the power of the medical domain, feelings of powerlessness, perceptions of fairness, risk and the impact on relationships. The findings call into question whether mental health tribunals necessarily operate in compliance with international human rights standards. This article suggests that mental health tribunals may need to do more to safeguard legislative principles and human rights standards that promote patient autonomy.

AB - 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 systematic search of the literature was conducted on the 17 April 2018 for articles published between 2000 and 2018 in MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsychINFO, ASSIA and Web of Science. All study designs were included within this review, provided they reported empirical findings. Thirty-two studies met the inclusion criteria. Eight themes were identified across the literature and these were participation, information and understanding, patient representation, the power of the medical domain, feelings of powerlessness, perceptions of fairness, risk and the impact on relationships. The findings call into question whether mental health tribunals necessarily operate in compliance with international human rights standards. This article suggests that mental health tribunals may need to do more to safeguard legislative principles and human rights standards that promote patient autonomy.

KW - human rights

KW - mental health

KW - mental health act

KW - systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064612448&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/hsc.12749

DO - 10.1111/hsc.12749

M3 - Review article

C2 - 30993806

AN - SCOPUS:85064612448

VL - 27

SP - e494-e513

JO - Health and Social Care in the Community

JF - Health and Social Care in the Community

SN - 0966-0410

IS - 4

ER -