Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it