8 ms·

The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) is here: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-wi

by DanBC 7y ago

The Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD) is here: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities-2.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-... Read Article 14: https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities/article-14-liberty-and-security-of-person.html https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-... Art14 says "Are not deprived of their liberty unlawfully or arbitrarily, and that any deprivation of liberty is in conformity with the law, and that the existence of a disability shall in no case justify a deprivation of liberty." The committee for the CRPD have said this means that involuntary treatment for people with mental illness is not allowed, and any laws that contain provision for involuntary treatment must be repealed. In England those would be the Mental Health Act and the Mental Capacity Act. The committee have also said that work arounds - detaining people not because they are mentally ill but because they pose a risk of danger to themselves or others - are also forbidden. Here's the thoughts of the committee: https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/GuidelinesArticle14.doc https://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/CRPD/GC/GuidelinesA...

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
dmitrygr 7y ago
> detaining people [...] because they pose a risk of danger to themselves or others - are also forbidden. What he actual fuck? If someone is out waving a knife around in the street because the voices in their head are telling them to, we very much DO need to detain them, for their safety and the safety of others. Who cares what any "committee" says about it?
- notfashion 7y ago
  You could have read the document before spewing toxic FUD about the kind of things mentally ill people supposedly do. Here's the section that addresses your concern: "All persons, including those with disabilities, have a duty to do no harm. Legal systems based on the rule of law have criminal and other laws in place to deal with the breach of this obligation. Persons with disabilities are frequently denied equal protection under these laws by being diverted to a separate track of law, including through mental health laws. These laws and procedures commonly have a lower standard when it comes to human rights protection, particularly the right to due process and fair trial, and are incompatible with article 13 in conjunction with article 14 of the Convention."
  - agdpf 7y ago
    It's normal that mental health laws have a lower standard for "human rights" when mentally ill people often behave in unexpected, illogical, and dangerous ways. We have to accommodate for that, for the safety of humans.
    - notfashion 7y ago
      Here we go again with the FUD: "mentally ill people often behave in ... dangerous ways". This kind of claim is harmful to the mentally ill as a group, because it is just not true. The vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous. You seem to be arguing also that it is only the mentally ill who often behave in "unexpected, illogical and dangerous ways". The reality is that humans in general sometimes do that, whether or not they have a clinical mental health problem. The way your comment insinuates that the mentally ill are sub-human is repellent, but I suppose you might not even realize that you are doing that. You may think of yourself as a model of logical, predictable and safe behaviour. I'm so tired of engineers who deny that there is any irrational element in their makeup. It is a naive thing to claim and a lame kind of deluded bid for superiority. "Others might be irrational, but not me!" Spare us. That attitude is the curse of HN and YC.
      - pkaye 7y ago
        >The vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous. Now can you talk about the minority who are dangerous to themselves and others around them and what should be done about them?
      - giggles_giggles 7y ago
        You're projecting. The post you're responding to specified action needs to be taken WHEN the mentally ill act in a way that endangers themselves or others. This certainly happens, and it's inhumane to pretend that, for example, a paranoid schizophrenic is better off homeless and filthy and hungry because they dont trust health workers than they are fed and housed against their will. Also, the comment you're replying to did nothing to indicate that the mentally ill are subhuman. By your logic it would be demeaning and wrong to pull a suicidal person away from a ledge against their will. Feh to that I say. Feh!
- candiodari 7y ago
  There is no shortage of laws that can be used to do exactly that, and I think it's quite an extreme interpretation you put forth here. Just to name a few: * conspiracy to commit a whole range of crimes, including murder * threatening people with an actual weapon * threatening people BUT this would prevent mental health "professionals" from detaining light or "highly functional" cases of things like autism and forcing "treatment" (confinement, nothing more) on them. And let's not forget that they are very much not above forcing themselves with brutal violence, locks and forced medication onto perfectly healthy patients when given the chance [1]. Nor are they above causing mental health issues in order to create themselves easy patients. [2] Or just lying. [3] (note: this is one of the centres where psychiatry was developed) Those easy but involuntary patients would be replaced, out of necessity, with people with actual mental disabilities, homeless, who need constant care, are addicted, destroy the place and/or are actually dangerous to the staff. In other words, almost exclusively patients that cannot be helped and/or are dangerous. This would destroy psychiatry. Good riddance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry [3] https://www.thelocal.ch/20190701/locked-up-for-being-different-switzerlands-dark-chapter https://www.thelocal.ch/20190701/locked-up-for-being-differe...
  - outlace 7y ago
    Sure, but the idea is that if someone is schizophrenic and threatening people, it would be better for the patient and society if she was admitted to a psych unit and treated, and possibly able to return her life, rather than incarcerating her for some time, releasing her untreated and then the same thing happening again and now she has a criminal record. As a resident psychiatrist, I can tell you that most of the time I'm not conflicted about involuntarily admitting a patient, at my institution it happens rarely, almost all patients sign in voluntarily and can request to leave, in fact most of the time we deal with patients who actually want to get admitted and will feign symptoms to do so, forcing us to admit them. The times we involuntarily admit patients are when they are so symptomatic that they would very likely die without treatment (e.g. they refuse to eat because they think their food is poisoned). Every field has its history of controversies, that doesn't mean the field as a whole is inherently bad.
jdietrich 7y ago
The position of the committee given in the guidelines on Article 14 appears to be completely untenable and fundamentally conflicts with the Article 10 right to life. Unless I have profoundly misunderstood their arguments, their position is that someone with a mental illness or intellectual disability may not be deprived of liberty on the basis of that illness or disability (or risks following from that illness or disability), ever, under any circumstances. That interpretation would forbid the carer of someone with severe intellectual disabilities from stopping them if they tried to run into traffic. It would forbid a care home for people with severe dementia from preventing patients from wandering off, even if those patients are agitated, disoriented and non-verbal. It would forbid a paramedic from tackling someone who is distressed, delusional and trying to jump off a rooftop. There is a perfectly legitimate argument to be had about the legitimacy of institutionalisation - even brief, time-limited institutionalisation - but these guidelines make a nonsense of the CPRD. It seems to me to be self-evident that some people lack the mental capacity to act in their own self-interests at least some of the time and would, left to their own devices, be at serious risk of death. I do not understand how the right to life and the absolute right to liberty can be compatible.

by DanBC 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

dmitrygr 7y ago

> detaining people [...] because they pose a risk of danger to themselves or others - are also forbidden. What he actual fuck? If someone is out waving a knife around in the street because the voices in their head are telling them to, we very much DO need to detain them, for their safety and the safety of others. Who cares what any "committee" says about it?

notfashion 7y ago
You could have read the document before spewing toxic FUD about the kind of things mentally ill people supposedly do. Here's the section that addresses your concern: "All persons, including those with disabilities, have a duty to do no harm. Legal systems based on the rule of law have criminal and other laws in place to deal with the breach of this obligation. Persons with disabilities are frequently denied equal protection under these laws by being diverted to a separate track of law, including through mental health laws. These laws and procedures commonly have a lower standard when it comes to human rights protection, particularly the right to due process and fair trial, and are incompatible with article 13 in conjunction with article 14 of the Convention."
- agdpf 7y ago
  It's normal that mental health laws have a lower standard for "human rights" when mentally ill people often behave in unexpected, illogical, and dangerous ways. We have to accommodate for that, for the safety of humans.
  - notfashion 7y ago
    Here we go again with the FUD: "mentally ill people often behave in ... dangerous ways". This kind of claim is harmful to the mentally ill as a group, because it is just not true. The vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous. You seem to be arguing also that it is only the mentally ill who often behave in "unexpected, illogical and dangerous ways". The reality is that humans in general sometimes do that, whether or not they have a clinical mental health problem. The way your comment insinuates that the mentally ill are sub-human is repellent, but I suppose you might not even realize that you are doing that. You may think of yourself as a model of logical, predictable and safe behaviour. I'm so tired of engineers who deny that there is any irrational element in their makeup. It is a naive thing to claim and a lame kind of deluded bid for superiority. "Others might be irrational, but not me!" Spare us. That attitude is the curse of HN and YC.
    - pkaye 7y ago
      >The vast majority of mentally ill people are not dangerous. Now can you talk about the minority who are dangerous to themselves and others around them and what should be done about them?
    - giggles_giggles 7y ago
      You're projecting. The post you're responding to specified action needs to be taken WHEN the mentally ill act in a way that endangers themselves or others. This certainly happens, and it's inhumane to pretend that, for example, a paranoid schizophrenic is better off homeless and filthy and hungry because they dont trust health workers than they are fed and housed against their will. Also, the comment you're replying to did nothing to indicate that the mentally ill are subhuman. By your logic it would be demeaning and wrong to pull a suicidal person away from a ledge against their will. Feh to that I say. Feh!
candiodari 7y ago
There is no shortage of laws that can be used to do exactly that, and I think it's quite an extreme interpretation you put forth here. Just to name a few: * conspiracy to commit a whole range of crimes, including murder * threatening people with an actual weapon * threatening people BUT this would prevent mental health "professionals" from detaining light or "highly functional" cases of things like autism and forcing "treatment" (confinement, nothing more) on them. And let's not forget that they are very much not above forcing themselves with brutal violence, locks and forced medication onto perfectly healthy patients when given the chance [1]. Nor are they above causing mental health issues in order to create themselves easy patients. [2] Or just lying. [3] (note: this is one of the centres where psychiatry was developed) Those easy but involuntary patients would be replaced, out of necessity, with people with actual mental disabilities, homeless, who need constant care, are addicted, destroy the place and/or are actually dangerous to the staff. In other words, almost exclusively patients that cannot be helped and/or are dangerous. This would destroy psychiatry. Good riddance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosenhan_experiment [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_about_psychiatry [3] https://www.thelocal.ch/20190701/locked-up-for-being-different-switzerlands-dark-chapter https://www.thelocal.ch/20190701/locked-up-for-being-differe...
- outlace 7y ago
  Sure, but the idea is that if someone is schizophrenic and threatening people, it would be better for the patient and society if she was admitted to a psych unit and treated, and possibly able to return her life, rather than incarcerating her for some time, releasing her untreated and then the same thing happening again and now she has a criminal record. As a resident psychiatrist, I can tell you that most of the time I'm not conflicted about involuntarily admitting a patient, at my institution it happens rarely, almost all patients sign in voluntarily and can request to leave, in fact most of the time we deal with patients who actually want to get admitted and will feign symptoms to do so, forcing us to admit them. The times we involuntarily admit patients are when they are so symptomatic that they would very likely die without treatment (e.g. they refuse to eat because they think their food is poisoned). Every field has its history of controversies, that doesn't mean the field as a whole is inherently bad.

jdietrich 7y ago

The position of the committee given in the guidelines on Article 14 appears to be completely untenable and fundamentally conflicts with the Article 10 right to life. Unless I have profoundly misunderstood their arguments, their position is that someone with a mental illness or intellectual disability may not be deprived of liberty on the basis of that illness or disability (or risks following from that illness or disability), ever, under any circumstances. That interpretation would forbid the carer of someone with severe intellectual disabilities from stopping them if they tried to run into traffic. It would forbid a care home for people with severe dementia from preventing patients from wandering off, even if those patients are agitated, disoriented and non-verbal. It would forbid a paramedic from tackling someone who is distressed, delusional and trying to jump off a rooftop. There is a perfectly legitimate argument to be had about the legitimacy of institutionalisation - even brief, time-limited institutionalisation - but these guidelines make a nonsense of the CPRD. It seems to me to be self-evident that some people lack the mental capacity to act in their own self-interests at least some of the time and would, left to their own devices, be at serious risk of death. I do not understand how the right to life and the absolute right to liberty can be compatible.