The discussion in the article gets to an interesting point: while the CRPD takes an absolute position on the issue of involuntary confinement of mental patients

The discussion in the article gets to an interesting point: while the CRPD takes an absolute position on the issue of involuntary confinement of mental patients, it also takes an absolute position on requiring the state to provide the right to independent living and the right to health to folks with mental illnesses. "if one of his (legal) tools as a psychiatrist is to be removed, there needs to be a corresponding commitment from society to do better by all its members. It is precisely this commitment that the CRPD demands through, for instance, the obligation it imposes upon states to secure the right to independent living for those with disabilities (Article 19) and the obligation that it imposes upon states to secure the right to health of those with disabilities (Article 25). If those obligations are carried through, and proper attention paid to the socio-economic factors underpinning mental ill-health, then it is not too much to suggest that the need for coercion will be dramatically reduced as the (perceived or actual) choice for clinicians such as Dr Gosney will not be between detention and watching a patient die." Interpreted this way, involuntary confinement should never be necessary because the state must have already provided something that would obviate it. I'm not sure what that something is, however.