Mental health legislation in the commonwealth.
OBJECTIVE
Mental health law is changing in some common law jurisdictions. Questions are being asked about whether special legislation is still needed, whether it is a health or a legal issue, and how this part of the law relates to cognate laws about patient consent to healthcare and determinations about competence. The role of tribunal or court adjudication of the need for admission is also debated, along with the capacity of the law to harness resources or manage care. It is therefore timely to review these debates.


RESULTS
Renewed support is evident in the literature for subsuming mental healthcare within the general laws governing consent to care or determinations of competence. Socio-legal and interdisciplinary research suggests that health perspectives are already quite dominant in mental health law, while involuntary detention may correlate poorly with levels of need. The mesh between the law and service systems remains problematic, and there is little evidence that law has yet developed a significant capacity for leveraging treatment resources.


CONCLUSIONS
This review suggests that the priority for future research lies in exploring the factors which enhance treatment access and outcomes for the mentally ill rather than debating the shape or content of mental health law.
Carney
Terry
T
Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. terryc@law.usy.edu.au
D001315:Australia; D005555:Forensic Psychiatry / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007258:Informed Consent / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D001523:Mental Disorders / Q000628:therapy*; D008605:Mental Health Services / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*