British Columbia’s Mental Health System: Addressing Systemic Human Rights Issues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In British Columbia (BC), Canada, mental health reforms over the last decade have moved back and forth between calls for practices that restrict human rights and those that are rooted in equity and social justice. In this article, we explore some of these tensions and their implications for human rights and equity in mental health care by critically analyzing three policies guiding mental health reform in BC using an intersectionality-based policy framework. Specifically, we interrogate the effects of a biomedical and individualized framing of mental health and substance use. We argue that such a framing is buttressed by neoliberal ideology and lays the groundwork for public and professional acceptance of coercive practices with particular consequences for Indigenous and racialized populations. This framing is juxtaposed with a holistic wellness and trauma-informed policy framework anchored by an understanding of the impact of colonization. However, what is missing in both policy framings is a full account of the documented ongoing human rights violations experienced by many people accessing BC’s mental health system. Our analysis shows how applying an intersectionality-based policy framework allows for a deeper exploration of the complex, interlocking systems of power and oppression that give rise to these human rights violations. We conclude with a discussion of the important role that decolonizing and intersectional approaches play for capturing the complexities of systemic inequities and advancing mental healthcare that protects and promotes mental wellbeing and human rights.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".