Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 4 de 4
Filter
Add more filters










Database
Language
Publication year range
2.
Psychiatr Psychol Law ; 27(5): 853-864, 2020.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33833613

ABSTRACT

The Mental Health (Forensic Provisions) Act 1990 (NSW) was amended in 2013 to include section 54 A, enabling an application to be made for the extension of a forensic patient's status. Thirteen patients were subject to an extension order between 2014 and 30 June 2018. Shared characteristics of these forensic patients were considered with a view to identifying the types of patients involved in these applications and the gaps in service provision that this might reflect. Nine out of the 13 patients subject to an extension order had a background of sexual offences, and all patients had either an intellectual disability and/or complex comorbid disorders, such as severe personality disorder. The extension orders coincide with gaps in the service provision in relation to the management of certain complex mental disorders, intellectual disability and problematic behaviours that lead to justice system involvement. The authors discuss the potential implications that these findings have for future resource allocation, legislative reform and service provision.

4.
Med J Aust ; 200(6): 352-4, 2014 Apr 07.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24702099

ABSTRACT

Generally, a patient may only be assessed and treated with his or her consent. It is difficult to interpret the law regarding doctors' powers and duties to assess and treat in cases where a patient refuses to accept medical advice but it is unclear whether the patient has decision-making capacity (DMC) or whether they are mentally ill. An examination of legal principles in this area suggests that there is a limited justification for doctors to detain a person for the purpose of assessment if they have good reason to suspect the person may either lack DMC or be mentally ill and if failure to detain the person is likely to lead to serious harm. This limited justification to detain would only apply for as long as the uncertainty about DMC or mental illness prevailed. Doctors have a duty to provide appropriate advice to patients who want to leave their care in circumstances where medical assessment or treatment may be required. Whether there is also a duty to detain someone in this situation is less clear, but we provide guidance to health care practitioners faced with this situation.


Subject(s)
Commitment of Mentally Ill/legislation & jurisprudence , Informed Consent/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Competency/legislation & jurisprudence , Mental Disorders , Physician's Role , Treatment Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence , Australia , Humans , Mental Disorders/diagnosis , Mental Disorders/therapy
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...