Home / Current Issue / Paper 1709722
Mental Health Law Reform and Patient Autonomy: A Legal Review of Involuntary Treatment Statutes
Subject area: Biological & Medical Sciences · Area of research: Mental Health Law
Abstract
This article critically examines the legal frameworks governing involuntary mental health treatment, with a focus on ongoing reforms aimed at enhancing patient autonomy and safeguarding human rights. Mental health law traditionally permits involuntary hospitalization and treatment based on criteria such as risk of harm to self or others and severe mental illness impairing decision-making capacity. While these statutes are designed to protect individuals and the public, they raise significant ethical and legal concerns about personal liberty, informed consent, and discriminatory practices against persons with psychosocial disabilities. Recent legal reforms in various jurisdictions reflect growing emphasis on human rights standards, particularly following the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD challenges traditional involuntary treatment models by advocating for supported decision-making and the elimination of coercive practices. This review analyzes national mental health laws, judicial decisions, and international guidelines to assess their compatibility with evolving human rights norms. Key issues explored include capacity assessments, the right to refuse treatment, procedural safeguards, and judicial oversight mechanisms. The paper highlights divergent approaches among jurisdictions, ranging from incremental reforms introducing stricter procedural protections, to more transformative models seeking to abolish involuntary treatment altogether. It also examines critiques of current legal standards that prioritize risk management over individual autonomy, as well as concerns about the adequacy of community-based alternatives to coercive care. This legal review concludes by emphasizing the need for a balanced, rights-based framework that protects both individual liberty and health. It calls for comprehensive reforms grounded in principles of dignity, autonomy, and non-discrimination, alongside robust investment in voluntary, community-centered mental health services. By advancing legal models that minimize coercion and empower patients, mental health law reform can better align with international human rights obligations and contemporary ethical standards.
Keywords
Mental health law, Reform, Patient Autonomy, Legal review, Involuntary treatment statutes
References
[1] Alden, D.L., Friend, J., Lee, P.Y., Lee, Y.K., Trevena, L., Ng, C.J., Kiatpongsan, S., Lim Abdullah, K., Tanaka, M. and Limpongsanurak, S., 2018. Who decides: me or we? Family involvement in medical decision making in Eastern and Western countries. Medical Decision Making, 38(1), pp.14-25.
[2] Allen, S. and Hawkins, A.J., 2017. Theorizing the decision‐making process for divorce or reconciliation. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 9(1), pp.50-68.
[3] Alston, B., 2017. Towards supported decision-making: Article 12 of the convention on the rights of persons with disabilities and guardianship law reform. Law in Context, 35(2), pp.21-43.
[4] Barnett, P., Matthews, H., Lloyd-Evans, B., Mackay, E., Pilling, S. and Johnson, S., 2018. Compulsory community treatment to reduce readmission to hospital and increase engagement with community care in people with mental illness: a systematic review and meta-analysis. The Lancet Psychiatry, 5(12), pp.1013-1022.
[5] Barstow, C., Shahan, B. and Roberts, M., 2018. Evaluating medical decision-making capacity in practice. American family physician, 98(1), pp.40-46.
[6] Beaupert, F., 2018. Freedom of opinion and expression: From the perspective of psychosocial disability and madness. Laws, 7(1), p.3.
[7] Beqiraj, J., Garahan, S. and Shuttleworth, K., 2018. Ombudsman schemes and effective access to justice: A study of international practices and trends.
[8] Biddulph, S., Nesossi, E. and Trevaskes, S., 2017. Criminal justice reform in the Xi Jinping era. China Law and Society Review, 2(1), pp.63-128.
[9] Bignami, F., 2016. Regulation and the courts: judicial review in comparative perspective. In Comparative Law and Regulation (pp. 275-304). Edward Elgar Publishing.
[10] Braithwaite, J., Churruca, K., Long, J.C., Ellis, L.A. and Herkes, J., 2018. When complexity science meets implementation science: a theoretical and empirical analysis of systems change. BMC medicine, 16, pp.1-14.
[11] Brooks, H., Harris, K., Bee, P., Lovell, K., Rogers, A. and Drake, R., 2017. Exploring the potential implementation of a tool to enhance shared decision making (SDM) in mental health services in the United Kingdom: a qualitative exploration of the views of service users, carers and professionals. International Journal of Mental Health Systems, 11, pp.1-12.
[12] Carney, T., 2017. Supported decision-making in Australia: Meeting the challenge of moving from capacity to capacity-building?. Law in Context, 35(2), pp.44-63.
[13] Cate, F.H., 2016. The failure of fair information practice principles. In Consumer Protection in the Age of the'Information Economy' (pp. 341-377). Routledge.
[14] Chan, H.Y., 2018. Advance directives: rethinking regulation, autonomy & Healthcare decision-making. Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
[15] Cocanour, C.S., 2017. Informed consent—It's more than a signature on a piece of paper. The American Journal of Surgery, 214(6), pp.993-997.
[16] Cokely, E.T., Feltz, A., Ghazal, S., Allan, J.N., Petrova, D. and Garcia-Retamero, R., 2018. Decision making skill: From intelligence to numeracy and expertise. Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance, 2018, pp.476-505.
[17] Crawford, A. and Evans, K., 2017. Crime prevention and community safety.
[18] Cullors, P., 2018. Abolition and reparations: Histories of resistance, transformative justice, and accountability. Harv. L. Rev., 132, p.1684.
[19] Davidson, G., Brophy, L., Campbell, J., Farrell, S.J., Gooding, P. and O'Brien, A.M., 2016. An international comparison of legal frameworks for supported and substitute decision-making in mental health services. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 44, pp.30-40.
[20] Delmon, J., 2017. Public-private partnership projects in infrastructure: an essential guide for policy makers. Cambridge university press.
[21] DePiñeres, T., Raifman, S., Mora, M., Villarreal, C., Foster, D.G. and Gerdts, C., 2017. ‘I felt the world crash down on me’: Women’s experiences being denied legal abortion in Colombia. Reproductive health, 14, pp.1-9.
[22] Dew, A., Dowse, L., Athanassiou, U. and Trollor, J., 2018. Current representation of people with intellectual disability in Australian mental health policy: The need for inclusive policy development. Journal of Policy and Practice in Intellectual Disabilities, 15(2), pp.136-144.
[23] Diadori, P., 2017. A mixed method review and quality criteria analysis: Towards improving decision aids and informing care models in prenatal testing.
[24] Dirth, T.P. and Branscombe, N.R., 2018. The social identity approach to disability: Bridging disability studies and psychological science. Psychological bulletin, 144(12), p.1300.
[25] Dove, E.S., Kelly, S.E., Lucivero, F., Machirori, M., Dheensa, S. and Prainsack, B., 2017. Beyond individualism: Is there a place for relational autonomy in clinical practice and research?. Clinical ethics, 12(3), pp.150-165.
[26] Duffy, R.M. and Kelly, B.D., 2017. Rights, laws and tensions: A comparative analysis of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the WHO Resource Book on Mental Health, Human Rights and Legislation. International journal of law and psychiatry, 54, pp.26-35.
[27] Fistein, E.C., Clare, I.C., Redley, M. and Holland, A.J., 2016. Tensions between policy and practice: a qualitative analysis of decisions regarding compulsory admission to psychiatric hospital. International journal of law and psychiatry, 46, pp.50-57.
[28] Flanagan, J., Boltz, M.P. and Grace, P.J., 2017. Practice Nursing: Caring. Nursing Ethics and Professional Responsibility in Advanced Practice, p.293.
[29] Fox-Decent, E. and Pless, A., 2017. The Charter and Administrative Law Part I: Procedural Fairness. Evan Fox-Decent & Alexander Pless, The Charter and Administrative Law Part I: Procedural Fairness, in ADMINISTRATIVE LAW IN CONTEXT, 3rd ed (Colleen Flood & Lorne Sossin, eds., Forthcoming).
[30] Freckelton, I., 2018. Involuntary detention decision-making, criteria and hearing procedures: An opportunity for therapeutic jurisprudence in action. In Involuntary detention and therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 293-337). Routledge.
[31] George, M.A., 2016. Expressive ends: Understanding conversion therapy bans. Ala. L. Rev., 68, p.793.
[32] Gillard, S., Foster, R., Gibson, S., Goldsmith, L., Marks, J. and White, S., 2017. Describing a principles-based approach to developing and evaluating peer worker roles as peer support moves into mainstream mental health services. Mental health and social inclusion, 21(3), pp.133-143.
[33] Gold, M.R., Realmuto, L., Scherer, M., Kamler, A. and Weiss, L., 2018. Community priorities for hospital-based prevention initiatives: results from a deliberating public. Journal of Public Health Management and Practice, 24(4), pp.318-325.
[34] Gopalan, G., Lee, S.J., Harris, R., Acri, M.C. and Munson, M.R., 2017. Utilization of peers in services for youth with emotional and behavioral challenges: A scoping review. Journal of adolescence, 55, pp.88-115.
[35] Gross, A.J. and Thomas, C., 2017. The New Abolitionism, International Law, and the Memory of Slavery. Law and History Review, 35(1), pp.99-118.
[36] Hailemariam, M., Fekadu, A., Prince, M. and Hanlon, C., 2017. Engaging and staying engaged: a phenomenological study of barriers to equitable access to mental healthcare for people with severe mental disorders in a rural African setting. International journal for equity in health, 16, pp.1-12.
[37] Haque, A.A., 2017. Law and morality at war. Oxford University Press.
[38] Hardesty, G.D., 2018. Emerging from Crisis: The Paris Climate Agreement and the New Development Paradigm.
[39] Hem, M.H., Molewijk, B., Gjerberg, E., Lillemoen, L. and Pedersen, R., 2018. The significance of ethics reflection groups in mental health care: a focus group study among health care professionals. BMC medical ethics, 19, pp.1-14.
[40] Hobbins, J., 2017. Between autonomy and paternalism: crisis managers’ constructions of citizens’ responsibilities in the context of crises and Contingencies. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 25(4), pp.269-278.
[41] Ibrahim, I.A., Brown, R.D. and Truby, J., 2017. Big data analytics and its impact on basin water agreements and international water law: A study of the Ramotswa aquifer. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, 73, p.101.
[42] Janus, E.S., 2018. Beyond Strict Scrutiny: Forbidden Purpose and the “Civil Commitment” Power. New Criminal Law Review, 21(3), pp.345-378.
[43] Kritsotaki, D., Long, V. and Smith, M. eds., 2016. Deinstitutionalisation and after: post-war psychiatry in the western world. Springer.
[44] Latonero, M., 2018. Governing artificial intelligence: Upholding human rights & dignity. Data & Society, 38.
[45] Leenes, R., Palmerini, E., Koops, B.J., Bertolini, A., Salvini, P. and Lucivero, F., 2017. Regulatory challenges of robotics: some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law, Innovation and Technology, 9(1), pp.1-44.
[46] Liang, D., Mays, V.M. and Hwang, W.C., 2018. Integrated mental health services in China: challenges and planning for the future. Health policy and planning, 33(1), pp.107-122.
[47] Luchtman, M.J.J.P. and Vervaele, J.A.E., 2017. Comparison of the legal frameworks.
[48] Mahomed, F., 2016. Stigma on the basis of psychosocial disability: A structural human rights violation. South African Journal on Human Rights, 32(3), pp.490-509.
[49] McLean, S.A. ed., 2016. First do no harm: law, ethics and healthcare. Routledge.
[50] McSwiggan, S., Meares, S. and Porter, M., 2016. Decision-making capacity evaluation in adult guardianship: a systematic review. International Psychogeriatrics, 28(3), pp.373-384.
[51] Merry, S.E. and Levitt, P., 2017. The vernacularization of women’s human rights. Human rights futures, pp.213-36.
[52] Mezzina, R., Rosen, A., Amering, M. and Javed, A., 2018. The practice of freedom: Human rights and the global mental health agenda. In Advances in psychiatry (pp. 483-515). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
[53] Milat, A.J. and Li, B., 2017. Narrative review of frameworks for translating research evidence into policy and practice. Public Health Res Pract, 27(1), p.e2711704.
[54] Mustapha, A.Y., Chianumba, E.C., Forkuo, A.Y., Osamika, D. and Komi, L.S., 2018. Systematic review of mobile health (mHealth) applications for infectious disease surveillance in developing countries. Methodology, 66.
[55] Naclerio, M.A., 2017. Accountability through procedure: Rethinking charter school accountability and special education rights. Colum. L. Rev., 117, p.1153.
[56] Nyarku, K.M., Kusi, L.Y., Domfeh, H.A., Ofori, H., Koomson, I. and Owusu, J.A., 2018. Moderating the service quality-customer loyalty relation through customer satisfaction, gender and banking status: Evidence from mobile money users in University of Cape Coast, Ghana. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social Sciences, 8(6), pp.704-733.
[57] Ogungbenle, H.N. and Omowole, B.M., 2012. Chemical, functional and amino acid composition of periwinkle (Tympanotonus fuscatus var radula) meat. Int J Pharm Sci Rev Res, 13(2), pp.128-132.
[58] Papadimos, T.J., Marcolini, E.G., Hadian, M., Hardart, G.E., Ward, N., Levy, M.M., Stawicki, S.P. and Davidson, J.E., 2018. Ethics of outbreaks position statement. Part 1: Therapies, treatment limitations, and duty to treat. Critical care medicine, 46(11), pp.1842-1855.
[59] Phillips, J.M., 2018. From Containment to Resilience: A Genealogy of the Governance of Mental Abnormality in Canada.
[60] Prado, M.M. and Trebilcock, M.J., 2018. Institutional bypasses: a strategy to promote reforms for development. Cambridge University Press.
[61] Purser, K. and Purser, K., 2017. Substitute decision-making. Capacity Assessment and the Law: Problems and Solutions, pp.129-148.
[62] Richardson, G., 2018. Involuntary treatment: Searching for principles. In Involuntary detention and therapeutic jurisprudence (pp. 55-73). Routledge.
[63] Sapag, J.C., Sena, B.F., Bustamante, I.V., Bobbili, S.J., Velasco, P.R., Mascayano, F., Alvarado, R. and Khenti, A., 2018. Stigma towards mental illness and substance use issues in primary health care: Challenges and opportunities for Latin America. Global Public Health, 13(10), pp.1468-1480.
[64] Scull, A., 2018. Social order/mental disorder: Anglo-American psychiatry in historical perspective. Routledge.
[65] Sinha, A., 2018. Defining detention: the intervention of the European Court of Human Rights in the detention of involuntary migrants. Colum. Hum. Rts. L. Rev., 50, p.176.
[66] Sokolowski, M., 2018. Dementia and the advance directive: Lessons from the bedside. Springer.
[67] Stoyanova, V., 2018. The disjunctive structure of positive rights under the European Convention on Human Rights. nordic journal of international law, 87(3), pp.344-392.
[68] Stuen, H.K., Landheim, A., Rugkåsa, J. and Wynn, R., 2018. Responsibilities with conflicting priorities: a qualitative study of ACT providers’ experiences with community treatment orders. BMC health services research, 18, pp.1-11.
[69] Szmukler, G. and Kelly, B.D., 2016. We should replace conventional mental health law with capacity-based law. The British Journal of Psychiatry, 209(6), pp.449-453.
[70] Taylor, B.J., 2017. Decision making, assessment and risk in social work.
[71] Tomossy, G.F. and Weisstub, D.N., 2017. The Reform of Adult Guardianship Laws:: The Case of Non-Therapeutic Experimentation. In Human Experimentation and Research (pp. 335-361). Routledge.
[72] Tõnurist, P. and Surva, L., 2017. Is volunteering always voluntary? Between compulsion and coercion in co-production. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 28, pp.223-247.
[73] Tran, N.T., Baggio, S., Dawson, A., O’Moore, É., Williams, B., Bedell, P., Simon, O., Scholten, W., Getaz, L. and Wolff, H., 2018. Words matter: a call for humanizing and respectful language to describe people who experience incarceration. BMC international health and human rights, 18, pp.1-6.
[74] Turnpenny, A., Petri, G., Finn, A., Beadle-Brown, J. and Nyman, M., 2018. Mapping and understanding exclusion: institutional, coercive and community-based services and practices across Europe.
[75] Usher, R. and Stapleton, T., 2018. Overview of the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act (2015) Implications and opportunities for occupational therapy. Irish Journal of Occupational Therapy, 46(2), pp.130-140.
[76] Whittaker, M., Crawford, K., Dobbe, R., Fried, G., Kaziunas, E., Mathur, V., West, S.M., Richardson, R., Schultz, J. and Schwartz, O., 2018. AI now report 2018 (pp. 1-62). New York: AI Now Institute at New York University.
How to cite this paper
@article{1709722,
author = {Augustine Onyeka Okoli, Irene Sagay, Sandra Oparah, Opeoluwa Oluwanifemi Ajayi, Collins Nwannebuike Nwokedi},
title = {Mental Health Law Reform and Patient Autonomy: A Legal Review of Involuntary Treatment Statutes},
journal = {Iconic Research And Engineering Journals},
year = {2019},
volume = {2},
number = {8},
pages = {200-216},
issn = {2456-8880},
url = {https://www.irejournals.com/formatedpaper/1709722.pdf},
abstract = {This article critically examines the legal frameworks governing involuntary mental health treatment, with a focus on ongoing reforms aimed at enhancing patient autonomy and safeguarding human rights. Mental health law traditionally permits involuntary hospitalization and treatment based on criteria such as risk of harm to self or others and severe mental illness impairing decision-making capacity. While these statutes are designed to protect individuals and the public, they raise significant ethical and legal concerns about personal liberty, informed consent, and discriminatory practices against persons with psychosocial disabilities. Recent legal reforms in various jurisdictions reflect growing emphasis on human rights standards, particularly following the adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). The CRPD challenges traditional involuntary treatment models by advocating for supported decision-making and the elimination of coercive practices. This review analyzes national mental health laws, judicial decisions, and international guidelines to assess their compatibility with evolving human rights norms. Key issues explored include capacity assessments, the right to refuse treatment, procedural safeguards, and judicial oversight mechanisms. The paper highlights divergent approaches among jurisdictions, ranging from incremental reforms introducing stricter procedural protections, to more transformative models seeking to abolish involuntary treatment altogether. It also examines critiques of current legal standards that prioritize risk management over individual autonomy, as well as concerns about the adequacy of community-based alternatives to coercive care. This legal review concludes by emphasizing the need for a balanced, rights-based framework that protects both individual liberty and health. It calls for comprehensive reforms grounded in principles of dignity, autonomy, and non-discrimination, alongside robust investment in voluntary, community-centered mental health services. By advancing legal models that minimize coercion and empower patients, mental health law reform can better align with international human rights obligations and contemporary ethical standards.},
keywords = {Mental health law, Reform, Patient Autonomy, Legal review, Involuntary treatment statutes},
month = {February},
}