The DOI matches its Crossref record; 39 of the 39 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
“Capacity”, “best interests”, “will and preferences” and the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Open accessAbstract
The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) is the most up‐to‐date international legal instrument concerning the rights of persons with disabilities. Such persons are taken to include those with serious mental disorders. According to an authoritative interpretation of a crucial Article (Article 12 ‐ Equal recognition before the law) by the UN CRPD Committee, involuntary detention and treatment of people with mental health disabilities are prohibited under the Convention. Both conventional mental health law and “capacity‐based” law are deemed to violate the Convention. However, some other UN bodies are not in full agreement (for example, the UN Human Rights Committee and the Subcommittee on Prevention of Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment), while others are less explicitly absolutist (for example, the Human Rights Council). Furthermore, strong criticisms of the position of the CRPD Committee have been mounted from a number of academic quarters. These criticisms center on whether the role of a person's ability to make a decision can be ignored, no matter the circumstances. Much of the above debate turns on the concept of “legal capacity” and the now often‐repeated precept that one must always respect the “will and preferences” of the person with a disability. However, “will and preferences” remains undefined. In this paper, I offer an analysis of “will and preferences” that can clarify interventions that may be acceptable or non‐acceptable under the terms of the UN Convention.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Actually, the understanding of the implications of an advance statement or directive becomes problematic in this Committee's interpretation, throwing up a significant inconsistency 60,61 .”
From Ethical challenges in contemporary psychiatry: an overview and an appraisal of possible strategies and research needs (2024) · cites this paper as [60]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Winzer, M. A., & Mazurek, K. (2017) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118768778.ch1 · Cited by 3,085
Assessing Competence to Consent to Treatment: A Guide for Physicians and Other Health Prefessionals
Grisso, T., & Appelbaum, P. S. (1998) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195103724.001.0001 · Cited by 823
United Nations Human Rights Council
Spohr, M. (2010) · Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law · doi:10.1163/18757413-90000052 · Cited by 566
Hyman, J. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198735779.001.0001 · Cited by 424
Freeman, M. C., Kolappa, K., Caldas‐de‐Almeida, J. M., Kleinman, A., Makhashvili, N., Phakathi, S., Saraceno, B., & Thornicroft, G. (2015) · The Lancet Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/s2215-0366(15)00218-7 · Cited by 317
Mental health law and the UN Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities
SZMUKLER, G. I., Daw, R., & Callard, F. J. (2013) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2013.11.024 · Cited by 291
Self-citationMelzer, N., & Cruel, I. O. D. T. O. P. O. (2017) · Cited by 275
Mental capacity in psychiatric patients: Systematic review
Okai, D., Owen, G., McGuire, H., Singh, S., Churchill, R., & Hotopf, M. (2007) · British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.106.035162 · Cited by 262
Fusion of mental health and incapacity legislation
Dawson, J., & SZMUKLER, G. I. (2006) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.188.6.504 · Cited by 252
Self-citationA realistic approach to assessing mental health laws' compliance with the UNCRPD
Dawson, J. (2015) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2015.04.003 · Cited by 209
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- United Nations, 2006, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
- United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention. Guideline 20 ‐ Specific measures for persons with disabilities. In: Basic Principles and Guidelines on Remedies and Procedures on the Right of Anyone Deprived of His or Her Liberty by Arrest or Detention to Bring Proceedings Before Court. A/HRC/30/37. 2015:23‐5.
- Martin W, 2015, Achieving CRPD compliance: an Essex autonomy project position paper
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Peer Support in Mental Health: Literature Review
Shalaby, R. A. H., & Agyapong, V. I. O. (2020) · JMIR Mental Health · doi:10.2196/15572 · Cited by 522
Bueno, H., Deaton, C., Farrero, M., Forsyth, F., Braunschweig, F., Buccheri, S., Dragan, S. R., Gevaert, S., Held, C., Kurpas, D., et al. (2025) · European Heart Journal · doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf191 · Cited by 224
Barbui, C., Purgato, M., Abdulmalik, J., Caldas-de-Almeida, J. M., Eaton, J., Gureje, O., Hanlon, C., Nosè, M., Ostuzzi, G., Saraceno, B., et al. (2021) · The British Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1192/bjp.2020.144 · Cited by 148
Saving the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities – from itself
Appelbaum, P. S. (2019) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20583 · Cited by 92
Open Dialogue as a Human Rights-Aligned Approach
von Peter, S., Aderhold, V., Cubellis, L., Bergström, T., Stastny, P., Seikkula, J., & Pūras, D. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2019.00387 · Cited by 91
Metadata
- Authors
- Szmukler, G.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Szmukler, George
- ORCID
- Szmukler, George
- Venue
- World Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2019-01-02
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 34-41
- ISSN
- 1723-8617 (ISSN-L)
- 2051-5545
- PMC
- PMC6313688
- OpenAlex
- W2908382073
- Cited by
- 213
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 24 · 2019: 27
- FWCI
- 37.08
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- World Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Disability Rights and Representation
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Keywords
- Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, legal capacity, best interests, mental health law, involuntary detention, involuntary treatment, severe mental illness, Article 12 CRPD, UN Human Rights Committee, UN Human Rights Council, decision-making capacity, disability rights
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
