Mental Health Tribunals: 'TJ' implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment

Terry Carney, David Tait, Duncan Chappell, Fleur Beaupert

Research output: Contribution to Newspaper/Magazine/BulletinArticle

Abstract

People with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and treatment. Therapeutic jurisprudence principles, and other precepts, suggest that participants should be treated with dignity and fairness, be fully engaged, and be helped to recover. Overseas research has found that these aspirations are often not realised. This paper reports findings from an ongoing Australian Research Council funded collaborative study (2005-2008) of the practice of Tribunals in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In particular it highlights the challenge of giving concrete meaning to concepts such as 'fairness' or 'the most therapeutic outcome' when assessing the variety of practices found in different jurisdictions. The article argues that information and data about the socio-legal context in which mental health tribunals operate is vital to answering these questions
Original languageEnglish
Pages46-59
Number of pages14
Volume17
Specialist publicationJournal of Judicial Administration
Publication statusPublished - 2008

Fingerprint

fairness
mental health
jurisprudence
mental illness
overseas
jurisdiction
health care
decision making

Cite this

Carney, Terry ; Tait, David ; Chappell, Duncan ; Beaupert, Fleur. / Mental Health Tribunals: 'TJ' implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment. In: Journal of Judicial Administration. 2008 ; Vol. 17. pp. 46-59.
@misc{2fc67b67188e46779b81f187841ab985,
title = "Mental Health Tribunals: 'TJ' implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment",
abstract = "People with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and treatment. Therapeutic jurisprudence principles, and other precepts, suggest that participants should be treated with dignity and fairness, be fully engaged, and be helped to recover. Overseas research has found that these aspirations are often not realised. This paper reports findings from an ongoing Australian Research Council funded collaborative study (2005-2008) of the practice of Tribunals in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In particular it highlights the challenge of giving concrete meaning to concepts such as 'fairness' or 'the most therapeutic outcome' when assessing the variety of practices found in different jurisdictions. The article argues that information and data about the socio-legal context in which mental health tribunals operate is vital to answering these questions",
author = "Terry Carney and David Tait and Duncan Chappell and Fleur Beaupert",
year = "2008",
language = "English",
volume = "17",
pages = "46--59",
journal = "Journal of Judicial Administration",
issn = "1036-7918",

}

Mental Health Tribunals: 'TJ' implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment. / Carney, Terry; Tait, David; Chappell, Duncan; Beaupert, Fleur.

In: Journal of Judicial Administration, Vol. 17, 2008, p. 46-59.

Research output: Contribution to Newspaper/Magazine/BulletinArticle

TY - GEN

T1 - Mental Health Tribunals: 'TJ' implications of weighing fairness, freedom, protection and treatment

AU - Carney, Terry

AU - Tait, David

AU - Chappell, Duncan

AU - Beaupert, Fleur

PY - 2008

Y1 - 2008

N2 - People with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and treatment. Therapeutic jurisprudence principles, and other precepts, suggest that participants should be treated with dignity and fairness, be fully engaged, and be helped to recover. Overseas research has found that these aspirations are often not realised. This paper reports findings from an ongoing Australian Research Council funded collaborative study (2005-2008) of the practice of Tribunals in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In particular it highlights the challenge of giving concrete meaning to concepts such as 'fairness' or 'the most therapeutic outcome' when assessing the variety of practices found in different jurisdictions. The article argues that information and data about the socio-legal context in which mental health tribunals operate is vital to answering these questions

AB - People with a serious mental illness warranting possible compulsory care and treatment are vulnerable and disempowered. Mental health tribunal hearings must balance the rights to freedom, public protection and need for treatment when making decisions about mental health care and treatment. Therapeutic jurisprudence principles, and other precepts, suggest that participants should be treated with dignity and fairness, be fully engaged, and be helped to recover. Overseas research has found that these aspirations are often not realised. This paper reports findings from an ongoing Australian Research Council funded collaborative study (2005-2008) of the practice of Tribunals in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. In particular it highlights the challenge of giving concrete meaning to concepts such as 'fairness' or 'the most therapeutic outcome' when assessing the variety of practices found in different jurisdictions. The article argues that information and data about the socio-legal context in which mental health tribunals operate is vital to answering these questions

M3 - Article

VL - 17

SP - 46

EP - 59

JO - Journal of Judicial Administration

JF - Journal of Judicial Administration

SN - 1036-7918

ER -