Involuntary psychiatric treatment and the erosion of consent: A critical discourse analysis of mental health legislation in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Mental Health Act (1996) is legislation that directs voluntary and involuntary psychiatric treatment for people experiencing mental health issues in British Columbia (BC), Canada. This critical discursive analysis explores how BC's Mental Health Act (1996) and the Guide to the Mental Health Act (2005) structure involuntary psychiatric treatment and illustrates how the discourses within these texts constitute people experiencing mental health issues as passive recipients of care. Understandings of people experiencing mental health issues as pathological, incapable, vulnerable and dangerous justify their need for protection and the protection of others. Protection is identified as a central legitimising discourse in the use of involuntary psychiatric treatment. Further, these texts define the roles and responsibilities of police, physicians and nurses in authorising and implementing involuntary psychiatric treatment. This analysis describes how this legislation erodes consent and entrenches social marginalisation. Alternatively, discourses of equity have potential to transform health care practices and structures that reproduce discourses of deficit, vulnerability and dangerousness, shifting towards promotion of the rights and safety of people experiencing mental health issues and crises.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.016 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.081 | 0.067 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".