Admission of a minor to a psychiatric hospital under Polish law. Part I. / Przyjecie maloletniego do szpitala psychiatrycznego w mysl polskiego prawa. Czesc I.

Within the scope of mental health protection, numerous practical problems arise concerning the issue of providing health services to a minor. Admission of a minor to a psychiatric hospital is associated in practice with numerous doubts. This part of the article describes the conditions of admission to hospital with the consent of the patient. It distinguishes and accurately describes situations where a minor is under or over 16 years of age. In addition, it explains situations where there is a contradiction of declarations of will by legal guardians in relation to admission, their inability to perform legal acts, or a contradiction of the statements of the minor and guardian. It also addresses the aspect of receiving written consent during the COVID-19 epidemic.

Under which conditions are changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment justified during the COVID-19 pandemic? An ethical evaluation of current developments in Germany.

The COVID-19 pandemic poses significant challenges in psychiatric hospitals, particularly in the context of the treatment of people under involuntary commitment. The question arises at various points in the procedure for and process of involuntary commitment whether procedural modifications or further restrictive measures are necessary to minimise the spread of COVID-19 and protect all people involved from infection. In the light of current developments in Germany, this article examines under which conditions changes in the treatment of people under involuntary commitment are ethically justified in view of the COVID-19 pandemic. Among others, we discuss ethical arguments for and against involuntary commitments with reference to COVID-19, the use of different coercive interventions, the introduction of video hearings, an increased use of video surveillance and interventions based on the German Infection Protection Act. We argue that strict hygiene concepts, the provision of sufficient personal protective equipment and frequent testing for COVID-19 should be the central strategies to ensure the best possible protection against infection. Any further restrictions of the liberty of people under involuntary commitment require a sound ethical justification based on the criteria of suitability, necessity and proportionality. A strict compliance with these criteria and the continued oversight by external and independent control mechanisms are important to prevent ethically unjustified restrictions and discrimination against people with the diagnosis of a mental disorder during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The Early Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Acute Care Mental Health Services.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to explore the effects of COVID-19 and the lockdown measures adopted in England on patients with acute mental illness. METHODS: The authors analyzed referrals to the crisis resolution and home treatment (CRHT) team and inpatient admissions to acute adult wards, at Leicestershire Partnership National Health Service Trust, an integrated community and mental health trust in the United Kingdom. Number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions during a 4-week period starting March 16, 2020 ("COVID-19 period"), was studied and compared with the same period in 2018 and 2019 ("control periods"). Demographic and clinical characteristics of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were compared with those admitted during the 2019 control period. RESULTS: The number of CRHT referrals and inpatient admissions were lower during the COVID-19 period, compared with the control periods, by approximately 12% and 20%, respectively. Patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were significantly more often detained under the Mental Health Act and were considered to pose a risk of aggression. The pattern of diagnoses differed significantly between 2020 and 2019. A higher percentage of patients admitted during the COVID-19 period were diagnosed as having nonaffective psychotic disorders (52% versus 35%) or bipolar disorder (25% versus 15%), and fewer received a diagnosis of depression (8% versus 16%), anxiety disorder (0% versus 3%), adjustment disorder (0% versus 8%), emotionally unstable personality disorder (6% versus 15%), or any other personality disorder (0% versus 5%) (p=0.01). CONCLUSIONS: These findings suggest that the pandemic has profoundly affected care by acute mental health services.

Mental health, mental capacity, ethics, and the law in the context of COVID-19 (coronavirus).

The emergence of the COVID-19 (coronavirus) pandemic in late 2019 and early 2020 presented new and urgent challenges to mental health services and legislators around the world. This special issue of the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry explores mental health law, mental capacity law, and medical and legal ethics in the context of COVID-19. Papers are drawn from India, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, Portugal, and the United States. Together, these articles demonstrate the complexity of psychiatric and legal issues prompted by COVID-19 in terms of providing mental health care, protecting rights, exercising decision-making capacity, and a range of other topics. While further work is needed in many of these areas, these papers provide a strong framework for addressing key issues and meeting the challenges that COVID-19 and, possibly, other outbreaks are likely to present in the future.

The COVID-19 pandemic and the human rights of persons with mental and cognitive impairments subject to coercive powers in Australia.

The purpose of this paper is to explore the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the human rights of persons with mental and cognitive impairments subject to coercive powers in Australia. It sets out the relevant human rights in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities which have been engaged by the COVID-19 pandemic and the government's response to it. It examines the effect of emergency legislation on the relaxation of human rights safeguards in mental health laws, with a focus on mental health tribunals (although it is limited by a lack of published decisions and gaps in publicly available information). However, some of the issues created for persons with disabilities during the COVID-19 pandemic are evident in some decisions published by the New South Wales Guardianship Tribunal. The paper critically analyses two guardianship decisions UZX [2020] NSWCATGD 3 (3 April, 2020) and GZK [2020] NSWCATGD 5 (23 April, 2020) and some emergency South Australian legislation COVID-19 Emergency Response Act, 2020 (SA) Schedule 1 to demonstrate the ways in which the human rights of persons with mental and cognitive impairments can be more at risk than those of the general population, even when the general population is itself in "lockdown."

Mental health and capacity laws in Northern Ireland and the COVID-19 pandemic: Examining powers, procedures and protections under emergency legislation.

This article examines the changes made to mental health and capacity laws in Northern Ireland through temporary emergency legislation, known as the Coronavirus Act 2020. The purpose of the legislation was to respond to the emergency situation created by the COVID-19 pandemic, in particular the increase pressure placed on health services in the United Kingdom. An overview is provided of the government's rationale for the changes to Northern Ireland mental health and capacity laws, as well as exploring how they are likely to be operationalised in practice. Consideration is also given as to how such changes may impact upon existing human rights protections for persons assessed as lacking mental capacity. It is argued that it is important that regular parliamentary oversight is maintained in relation to the potential impact and consequences of such changes during the period they are in force. This should be done in order to assess whether they remain a necessary, proportionate and least restrictive response to the challenges faced in managing mental health and capacity issues in Northern Ireland during this public health emergency.

"It's about how much we can do, and not how little we can get away with": Coronavirus-related legislative changes for social care in the United Kingdom.

The coronavirus pandemic, referred to here as Covid-19, has brought into sharp focus the increasing divergence of devolved legislation and its implementation in the United Kingdom. One such instance is the emergency health and social care legislation and guidance introduced by the United Kingdom Central Government and the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in response to this pandemic. We provide a summary, comparison and discussion of these proposed and actual changes with a particular focus on the impact on adult social care and safeguarding of the rights of citizens. To begin, a summary and comparison of the relevant changes, or potential changes, to mental health, mental capacity and adult social care law across the four jurisdictions is provided. Next, we critique the suggested and actual changes and in so doing consider the immediate and longer term implications for adult social care, including mental health and mental capacity, at the time of publication.several core themes emerged: concerns around process and scrutiny; concerns about possible changes to the workforce and last, the possible threat on the ability to safeguard human rights. It has been shown that, ordinarily, legislative provisions across the jurisdictions of the UK are different, save for Wales (which shares most of its mental health law provisions with England). Such divergence is also mirrored in the way in which the suggested emergency changes could be implemented. Aside from this, there is also a wider concern about a lack of parity of esteem between social care and health care, a concern which is common to all. What is interesting is that the introduction of CVA 2020 forced a comparison to be made between the four UK nations which also shines a spotlight on how citizens can anticipate receipt of services.

Emergency mental health legislation in response to the Covid-19 (Coronavirus) pandemic in Ireland: Urgency, necessity and proportionality.

Many countries have enacted, or are in the process of enacting, emergency mental health legislation in response to the global pandemic of Covid-19 (coronavirus). In Ireland, the Emergency Measures in the Public Interest (Covid-19) Act, 2020 amends the Mental Health Act 2001 to permit the Mental Health Commission to request an independent psychiatric report about an involuntary patient from any consultant psychiatrist who is not treating the patient (and not just those on its designated panel). This independent examination may occur 'in person', 'by other appropriate means', or even, 'due to the exigencies of the public health emergency', not occur at all, once this is explained in the resultant report. The 2020 Act acknowledges that 'the exigencies of the public health emergency' might hamper the independent psychiatrist's work and requires a written report from the patient's treating psychiatrist 'no earlier than the day before' the tribunal, in lieu of the psychiatrist physically attending a tribunal hearing, although, if possible, they will attend (i.e. phone in to) a tribunal held by conference call. The 2020 Act permits the Mental Health Commission to, if necessary, appoint tribunals 'consisting of one member who shall be a practising barrister or solicitor'. Such a tribunal shall, if possible, consult with a consultant psychiatrist if the reports from the independent psychiatrist and treating psychiatrist conflict or if it is otherwise 'necessary in the interest of the patient'. A tribunal can extend an involuntary order by a second period of 14 days 'of its own motion if the tribunal, having due regard to the interest of the patient, is satisfied that it is necessary'. Tribunals for current involuntary patients will be prioritised over retrospective tribunals for discharged patients; a tribunal can direct a witness to provide 'a written statement' rather than attending; and the patient can make written representation to the tribunal instead of physically attending a tribunal hearing, although they may attend (i.e. phone in to) a tribunal held by conference call. Psycho-surgery for involuntary patients is banned. While it is clear that revisions are urgent and necessary in light of Covid-19, the proportionality of these changes will depend on how, and the extent to which, they are used in practice. With good communication, efficient team-working and close adherence to professional codes of practice and ethics, it is hoped that these amendments will result in a review system that is as reasonable, robust and reassuring as the current, highly unusual circumstances permit.