Comparing aspects of mental health legislation of Israel and Massachusetts.
This paper compares the manner in which two sets of mental health laws, that of Massachusetts, U.S.A., and that of the State of Israel, deal with specific areas of civil enforced commitment. The definition of psychiatric disorder that justifies commitment is broader in Massachusetts, in Israel psychosis alone is considered, excluding conditions such as severe non-psychotic depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder and anorexia. In Israel, commitment is possible only when there is a risk of danger that is immediate. In Massachusetts, only a judge can make decisions beyond the first four days, while in Israel they are made by a District Psychiatrist. Unlike Massachusetts, there is no possibility of enforced commitment of alcoholics or drug addicts in Israel, even in the presence of impaired judgement and severe family distress. The changing trends are presented, as Israel seems to be drawing slowly toward the Massachusetts position in some of these issues. The role of consumers in these processes is considered, as is the possibility of enforced commitment of people with severe personality disorders.
Ness Ziona Mental Health Center, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Israel. rmester@netvision.net.il
Roberto
R
Mester
Debra
D
Pinals
D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D004637:Emergency Services, Psychiatric / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006760:Hospitalization; D006801:Humans; D007557:Israel; D008404:Massachusetts; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000628:therapy; D008605:Mental Health Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D010554:Personality Disorders / Q000534:rehabilitation