Fault-lines in community treatment order legislation.
This article discusses the major tension points in the legislation that authorises involuntary outpatient treatment for mental disorder in six British Commonwealth jurisdictions. Particular attention is paid to the role of competence (or capacity) principles in the ruling legal criteria, to the precise powers of community treatment conferred, and to the potential impact of the legislation on clinicians' liability concerns. It is argued that the conferral on clinicians of a power to administer 'forced medication' in community settings is not required to promote active use of involuntary outpatient care, and that such a power should not be provided. The article concludes with discussion of the reasons why community treatment orders are used more frequently in some jurisdictions than others.
Dawson
John
J
University of Otago, New Zealand. john.dawson@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
D000553:Ambulatory Care / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D001315:Australia / Q000453:epidemiology; D002170:Canada / Q000453:epidemiology; D003134:Commitment of Persons with Psychiatric Disorders / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D003156:Community Mental Health Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence* / Q000458:organization & administration* / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006760:Hospitalization / Q000706:statistics & numerical data; D006801:Humans; D016365:Liability, Legal; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000453:epidemiology / Q000534:rehabilitation / Q000628:therapy*; D009520:New Zealand / Q000453:epidemiology; D013997:Time Factors; D006113:United Kingdom / Q000453:epidemiology