Notice bibliographique
Résumé
As mental health law involves state-sanctioned coercion, and mental health care has a history of neglect and abuse, it has always been controversial. But, it is only since the entry into force of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2008 that the call for the abolition of mental health law, particularly involuntary detention in hospital and psychiatric treatment, has started to gain real momentum. Since then certain scholars, international human rights bodies and disability and human rights advocates (whom I call abolitionists) have been increasingly critical of mental health law on the grounds that it is discriminatory and an unjustified deprivation of liberty and bodily integrity. Instead, abolitionists argue that persons with mental impairment should be offered support to make their own decisions and where that is not possible, after substantial efforts have been made, decisions should be made by a supporter or facilitator based on the best interpretation of the persons will and preferences, rather than in a person’s objective medical best interests. However, the text of the CRPD does not explicitly ban mental health law or substitute decision-making because States Parties would not agree to this during the CRPD negotiations, and many States Parties, such as Australia and Canada have given interpretive declarations to that effect. Abolitionists nonetheless insist that the CRPD ought to be interpreted in a way that requires the abolition of mental health law and continue to criticise States Parties for retaining mental health law, even though many States Parties have reviewed and reformed, or are in the process of reviewing or reforming their mental health law. Against this contentious background, my thesis explores the question of whether mental health law should be abolished or reformed. I do so by using the CRPD and international human rights law as my conceptual framework, including the interactive social model of disability. Rather than take a purely doctrinal approach, I have also adopted a socio-legal methodology which aims to understand the development of mental health law and the call for the abolition of mental health law within its socio-historical context drawing on theoretical and empirical research. As part of my analysis, I have developed what I call the ‘interpretive compass’ which explores the scope and meaning of inherent dignity, equality, and participation which are core human rights concepts underpinning the CRPD. I then present a more moderate interpretation of the CRPD which supports significant legal, systemic and social reform, rather than the abolition of mental health law. Specifically, it is my thesis that mental health law should not be abolished but be reformed by decreasing coercion and increasing social support to persons with mental impairments to maximise their dignity (including autonomy), equality and participation in accordance with the overall object and purpose of the CRPD. I also use the ‘interpretive compass’ to analyse three models of mental health law reform: (1) the Abolition with Support, (2) Mental Capacity with Support, and (3) Support Except Where there is Harm models. Of these, I argue that the Mental Capacity with Support model is presently the most consistent with the interpretive compass of the CRPD.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,010 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».