One Flu Over The Cuckoo’s Nest: Comparing Legislated Coercive Treatment for Mental Illness with that for Other Illness [Book Review]

Journal of Bioethical Inquiry 8 (1):87-93 (2011)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Many of the world’s mental health acts, including all Australian legislation, allow for the coercive detention and treatment of people with mental illnesses if they are deemed likely to harm themselves or others. Numerous authors have argued that legislated powers to impose coercive treatment in psychiatric illness should pivot on the presence or absence of capacity not likely harm, but no Australian act uses this criterion. In this paper, I add a novel element to these arguments by comparing the use of the harm to others justification for coercive treatment in mental illness with its use in illness due to infectious disease, and suggest a double standard applies. People with mental illness are subjected to coercive treatments at levels of risk to others far, far lower than would precipitate coercive treatment in people with influenza. In effect, this element of mental health legislation represents an example of sanism—state-sanctioned discrimination against people with mental illnesses

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 93,296

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Analytics

Added to PP
2010-12-18

Downloads
2 (#1,819,493)

6 months
64 (#80,765)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Commentary.Lawrence O. Gostin - 2003 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (4):524-528.
Commentary.Lawrence O. Gostin - 2003 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 31 (4):524-528.

Add more references