Literature DB >> 35530126

The role of the Mental Health Tribunal in setting duration of compulsory treatment in Victoria.

Michelle Taylor-Sands1,2, Zashalla Nicholson2.   

Abstract

This article explores the role of the Mental Health Tribunal (the Tribunal) in setting duration of compulsory treatment orders under the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) (the MH Act) using qualitative analysis of data obtained by a Tribunal working group. It explores the extent to which there is a difference between the duration of treatment orders requested by treating teams and those made by the Tribunal, as well as the factors the Tribunal takes into account in setting a different duration. Results reveal the Tribunal made a treatment order of different (mostly shorter) duration in one out of five hearings. In these cases, two out of four factors identified by the working group were dominant influences: (1) ensuring congruence with the principles of the MH Act; and (2) information presented by one or more participants at the hearing. There were also high levels of attendance from either the patient, their support person or their legal representative when the Tribunal made a treatment order of different duration. This suggests participation by patients and support people at hearings provides the Tribunal with the information it needs to consider the principles under the MH Act meaningfully when exercising its discretion to determine the duration of compulsory treatment orders.
© 2020 The Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and Law.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Mental Health Act; Mental Health Tribunal; Treatment Order; compulsory treatment order; decision-making; human rights; mental health; mental health law

Year:  2020        PMID: 35530126      PMCID: PMC9067996          DOI: 10.1080/13218719.2020.1775153

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychiatr Psychol Law        ISSN: 1321-8719


  8 in total

1.  Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh; Sarah E Shannon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-11

2.  The unintended impact of the therapeutic intentions of the New Zealand Mental Health Review Tribunal? Therapeutic jurisprudence perspectives.

Authors:  Kate Diesfeld; Brian McKenna
Journal:  J Law Med       Date:  2007-05

3.  The decision-making of the Mental Health Review Tribunal in New Zealand.

Authors:  Katey Thom; Stella Black; Graham Panther
Journal:  J Law Med       Date:  2015-03

4.  Does legislative change affect the use and duration of compulsory treatment orders?

Authors:  Ruth Vine; Holly Tibble; Jane Pirkis; Fiona Judd; Matthew J Spittal
Journal:  Aust N Z J Psychiatry       Date:  2018-11-18       Impact factor: 5.744

5.  The concept of capacity in Australian mental health law reform: Going in the wrong direction?

Authors:  Bernadette McSherry; Kay Wilson
Journal:  Int J Law Psychiatry       Date:  2015-05-06

6.  Community Treatment Orders and Supported Decision-Making.

Authors:  Lisa Brophy; Renata Kokanovic; Jacinthe Flore; Bernadette McSherry; Helen Herrman
Journal:  Front Psychiatry       Date:  2019-06-11       Impact factor: 4.157

7.  The Hawthorne Effect: a randomised, controlled trial.

Authors:  Rob McCarney; James Warner; Steve Iliffe; Robbert van Haselen; Mark Griffin; Peter Fisher
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2007-07-03       Impact factor: 4.615

8.  Adverse consequences of article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities for persons with mental disabilities and an alternative way forward.

Authors:  Matthé Scholten; Jakov Gather
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2017-10-25       Impact factor: 2.903

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.