• myGriffith
    • Staff portal
    • Contact Us⌄
      • Future student enquiries 1800 677 728
      • Current student enquiries 1800 154 055
      • International enquiries +61 7 3735 6425
      • General enquiries 07 3735 7111
      • Online enquiries
      • Staff phonebook
    View Item 
    •   Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    • Home
    • Griffith Research Online
    • Journal articles
    • View Item
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

  • All of Griffith Research Online
    • Communities & Collections
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • This Collection
    • Authors
    • By Issue Date
    • Titles
  • Statistics

  • Most Popular Items
  • Statistics by Country
  • Most Popular Authors
  • Support

  • Contact us
  • FAQs
  • Admin login

  • Login
  • How the statutory health attorney provision in Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) is incompatible with human rights

    Author(s)
    Gill, Neeraj S
    Turner, Kathryn
    Griffith University Author(s)
    Gill, Neeraj
    Year published
    2020
    Metadata
    Show full item record
    Abstract
    OBJECTIVE: Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) (MHA 2016) includes many 'less restrictive ways' to minimise involuntary/compulsory treatment. One such measure, the statutory health attorney, has been adopted from the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld). This paper analyses the statutory health attorney provision against the human rights framework adopted by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). METHOD: The statutory health attorney provision was analysed against the CRPD article 12 (equal recognition before the law). RESULTS: The statutory health attorney provision is not based on the will ...
    View more >
    OBJECTIVE: Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) (MHA 2016) includes many 'less restrictive ways' to minimise involuntary/compulsory treatment. One such measure, the statutory health attorney, has been adopted from the Powers of Attorney Act 1998 (Qld). This paper analyses the statutory health attorney provision against the human rights framework adopted by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). METHOD: The statutory health attorney provision was analysed against the CRPD article 12 (equal recognition before the law). RESULTS: The statutory health attorney provision is not based on the will and preferences of the individual, is not free from conflict of interest and is not subject to the required safeguards. CONCLUSION: The use of a statutory health attorney brings mental health and physical health under the same provision (the fusion law/proposal). However, the statutory health attorney provision is not compatible with the contemporary human rights framework adopted by the CRPD.
    View less >
    Journal Title
    Australas Psychiatry
    DOI
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1039856220968406
    Note
    This publication has been entered as an advanced online version in Griffith Research Online.
    Subject
    Biomedical and clinical sciences
    Psychology
    human rights
    medical/psychiatric ethics
    mental health law
    substitute decision-making
    Publication URI
    http://hdl.handle.net/10072/399558
    Collection
    • Journal articles

    Footer

    Disclaimer

    • Privacy policy
    • Copyright matters
    • CRICOS Provider - 00233E
    • TEQSA: PRV12076

    Tagline

    • Gold Coast
    • Logan
    • Brisbane - Queensland, Australia
    First Peoples of Australia
    • Aboriginal
    • Torres Strait Islander