Cited by 24Healthcare Decision-Making and RestraintsHealth, Medicine and SocietyDisability Rights and Representation

Measuring the impact of revised mental health legislation on human rights in Queensland, Australia

Open access
Gill, Neeraj S., Amos, Andrew, Muhsen, Hassan, Hatton, Joshua, Ekanayake, Charuka, Kisely, Steve·2020·International Journal of Law and Psychiatry

Abstract

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2006) (CRPD) has been instrumental for initiating and shaping the reform of mental health legislation in many countries, including the eight Australian jurisdictions. Multiple approaches have been proposed to assess and monitor the compliance of States Parties' mental health legislation with the CRPD, and to evaluate its success in protecting and promoting the human rights of people with disabilities. This article reports an effort to index the impact of legislation on human rights by measuring changes in the prevalence of compulsory treatment orders applied to people with mental illness after the introduction of CRPD influenced mental health legislation in the Australian state of Queensland. We found that despite reforms intended to enhance patient autonomy, the prevalence of compulsory treatment orders increased after implementation of the new legislation. Possible reasons behind this unintended consequence of the legislative reform may include a lack of systematized voluntary alternatives to compulsory treatment, a paternalistic and restrictive culture in mental health services and risk aversion in clinicians and society. We recommend that the reforms in mental health policy as well as legislation need to go further in order to achieve the goals embodied in the human rights framework of the CRPD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101634

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 25 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Gill, N. S., Amos, A., Muhsen, H., Hatton, J., Ekanayake, C., & Kisely, S.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • James Cook University (AU)
  • The University of Queensland (AU)
Corresponding author
Gill, Neeraj S.
Venue
International Journal of Law and Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-11
Volume
73
Pages
101634
ISSN
0160-2527 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3092670957
Cited by
24
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2020: 1
FWCI
0.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (publishedVersion, public-domain)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline at James Cook University (James Cook University) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Griffith University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Healthcare Decision-Making and Restraints
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Disability Rights and Representation
Keywords
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, mental health law reform, human rights of people with mental illness, patient autonomy, Queensland, unintended consequences of legislation
MeSH terms
Involuntary Treatment, Mental Disorders, Persons with Disabilities, Disabled Persons, Health Policy, Humans, Human Rights, Mental Health, Queensland, Prevalence, Personal Autonomy, Patient 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