Human Rights

International Human Rights Lawyer Tina Minkowitz challenges Mental Health System

IF someone decides not to have chemotherapy in Victoria; thatโ€™s their choice.

If they want to opt out of an organ transplant, or forego taking daily insulin injections; people have that right.

But if you have a mental illness in this state and you refuse treatment, you will most likely be treated against your will.

This emotional and ethically fraught debate of whether someone with a mental illness has the insight to rationally refuse treatment is bread and butter for Tina Minkowitz.

Ms Minkowitz, one of the worldโ€™s leading human rights lawyers in the areas of mental health and disability, tackled these issues as guest speaker at the Australian Federation of Disability Organisationsโ€™ conference in Melbourne last week.

The New York resident is also co-chair of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry, a movement that sees involuntary mental health treatment as paramount to torture.

And her visit, in which she stayed in Eltham, was timely given Victoria is undergoing the first comprehensive review for more than two decades of its Mental Health Act - the laws surrounding the involuntary treatment of the stateโ€™s most unwell.

Harmful, not helpful

Ms Minkowitz, who played a key role in the drafting of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, said often the best intentions from medical professionals were often actually more traumatic than therapeutic.

โ€œWhat does it mean to say somebody needs help? Because I donโ€™t think it helps to put somebody in a locked ward,โ€ she said.

โ€œOften the person is put in handcuffs or in an ambulance, sometimes your clothes are taken away and you have to put on a hospital gown or a nightgown.

โ€œAnd then youโ€™re put behind a locked door, youโ€™re almost certainly going to be forced to take drugs.โ€

She said the key to making human rights the focus of the mental health system was to move away from psychiatric medication as core of the system. โ€œI think that needs to be turned on its head.

โ€œThe central piece needs to be engaging with people on a human level, seeing if there are conflicts or issues with their family or community and have psychotherapy available among other alternatives.โ€

Learning to listen

Coersive treatment, no matter what the intension, should never be allowed no matter what the situation Ms Minkowitz said.

โ€œAn example where harm reduction is never coercive is domestic violence.

โ€œIt might be really painful to hear the sounds of your friend or neighbourher getting beaten up by her abusive spouse, but it doesnโ€™t give me the right to get her out of there against her will and put her somewhere I think sheโ€™d be safer.

โ€œThatโ€™s something the womenโ€™s movement addressed; you donโ€™t do that.

How do you deal with a friend in that situation? You talk to her, you make opinions available to her, you let her know that itโ€™s not ok, you train the police so they can respond in a useful way.

You donโ€™t see the person as the problem, to be done things to. You donโ€™t see her as incapable and I think in mental health the opposite is true.

The assumption is because this person is going through this intensive, emotional, psychic state that theyโ€™re incapable of making any decision about where they want to go or what kind of help they need, and thatโ€™s just not true.โ€™โ€™

Legislating consent

Ms Minkowitzโ€™s drive to lobby for improving the human rights for those with a mental illness, was ignited from what she heard during menal health review hearings in Brooklyn, New York.

What I found was that in New York people have a right to refuse drugs unless theyโ€™re deemed to lack the capacity to make a rational decision. So just the fact that youโ€™re an involuntary patient didnโ€™t mean theyโ€™ll force drug you on an involuntary basis.

When that came out people in the movement thought thatโ€™s great. Of course I have the capacity to make a rational decision, we said. I know those drugs are poison, I know how bad they are, Iโ€™m making a very rational decision to refuse.

But thatโ€™s not how the courts were seeing it.

That was the main thing that struck me when doing these observations; sometimes a psychiatrist would make a mere observation that these people lacked the capacity to refuse treatment. A lot of times they used the word โ€˜โ€™paranoiaโ€™โ€™ to categories the personโ€™s refusal of treatment.

The judge would say โ€œorder grantedโ€, meaning their psychiatrist could go ahead and force them to take it.

We may have the fight in theory, but in reality itโ€™s useless to protect us because itโ€™s so easy for them to say if youโ€™ve got a mental illness, of course you lack the capacity to make a decision.โ€™โ€™

New era

But with the convention ratified, and activists like Ms Minkowitz now monitoring its implementation, she said the system was entering โ€œa new eraโ€ in dealing with mental health issues from a human rights perspective.

I think there was a previous point in which people were starting to understand that you had to apply some human rights principals to the mental health system, that it couldnโ€™t just go on unreined and unregulated, allowing doctors to do coercive treatments, allowing people to be locked up for long periods of time without any kind of oversight,โ€™โ€™ she said.

โ€œBut it was still assumed that these coercive practices were legitimate, and that basically human rights meant you had to regulate them and limit the power to doctors, but not take it away entirely.

โ€œNow - and itโ€™s associated with the Convention on the Rights of People with a Disability - what this convention comes out of is about 30 years of development from the survivors of psychiatry, that the primary demand of that movement has been to get rid of the coercion and seeing forced treatment as something violent, a form of assault or torture.

โ€œPeople are seeing that thereโ€™s the possibility of a new way to look at โ€˜madnessโ€™.

โ€œItโ€™s up to people in Australia to decide what they think is a useful strategy and lobbying for that to happen. Maybe implementing goals for reducing forced druggings, electro-convulsive therapy, and the use of seclusion and restraint might be an interesting way to go in this country.โ€

By: Brigid O'Connell
When: 7/2/2014

Last modified: Friday, 07 February 2014 06:02:58 Valid XHTML 1.1