Transcript Slide 1

What consumers
want from new
mental health
laws
A consumer forum
by the
Mental Health Legal Centre
Thursday 17 February 2011
Lionel Murphy Centre
© Mental Health Legal Centre Inc.
Session 1 - Compulsory treatment &
refusing treatment
What does the draft bill say about:
1.
2.
3.
Compulsory treatment / involuntary treatment
Refusing treatment
Responsibilities on treating team – treatment planning
Compulsory treatment & refusing
treatment
Still in the draft bill –
•
•
•
•
You can still have compulsory treatment in community (CTO) &
compulsory treatment and detention in hospital (ITO)
Can be forcibly treated if you are refusing treatment (if invol patient)
Can refuse treatment provided you are a voluntary patient
Treatment plans for CTOs
but proposed law is different –
•
process for being placed on an order
•
criteria for involuntary treatment (“5 criteria”)
•
the names of some orders and who can make them & max length
•
who clinician must notify when order made
•
second opinion after 3-months invol treatment
•
treatment plans & how planning occurs – eg. no TP for inpatient
•
carer involvement in treatment planning
Compulsory treatment - process
Key changes to the process –
1. Staged system of ‘compulsory orders’ (new name)
2. Must take into account views of “nominated person” & notify them if order made
3. Psychiatrists cannot extend CTO. Only Mental Health Tribunal (old MHRB) can
make “extended” order. Psychiatrist must make application.
Inpatient – after 28 days (4 weeks) - MHT can make “extended inpatient treatment
order”
CTO – after 3 months – MHT can make “extended community treatment order”
* But no limit to number of times MHT can make an extended order (same as MHA)
Compulsory treatment - process
Key changes to the (max) length of orders, who makes them & initial t’ment
Current MHA Request &
recommend’n
3 days – taken to
clinic or hospital
for Assessment
Interim ITO
24 hr –auth
psych exam’n
(hospital)
* Immed t’ment
Draft Bill Assessment Order
3 days – to be
taken to hospital
24 hrs x 3 (3
days) detention
in hospital
* Minimum
t’ment - to save
life / distress
Involuntary t’ment
order (ITO)
(hospital) – no limit
Community t’ment
order (CTO)
Extension of CTO (new
CTO - psych)
12 months
12 mths
Inpatient t’ment
order (ITO)
Extended Inpatient
T’ment Order (MHT)
28 days
6 mths
Community t’ment
order (CTO)
Extended Community
T’ment Order (MHT)
3 months
18 mths
Compulsory treatment – 5 criteria
What does the draft bill say 1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Person has a mental illness (Assessment order - “appears to have”)
T’ment would be likely to (i) prevent MI worsening, or (ii) alleviate its
symptoms or effects + available at MHS
“imminent and significant risk” of “serious harm” to self/others,
or
“significant risk” of “serious physical or mental deterioration”
Because of MI, ability to make decisions is “significantly impaired”
“significantly impaired” = unable to:
Understand relevant info
Retain that info
Use, weigh or appreciate that info in process of making decision
Communicate the decision
All reasonable less restrictive options (inc. Vol t’ment) have been considered
& are not suitable
Compulsory treatment – 5 criteria
What does this all mean?
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
Mental illness – more in line with WHO says, but Assessment Order still
authorises invol t’ment
Treatment is necessary – essentially the same as MHA
Risk – confirms how MHRB has interpreted risk in MHA; significant risk of
serious deterioration is still broad
Unable to consent – now phrased as “significant impairment” in ability to make
decision
New “consent” or “capacity” test now more explicit
Will psychiatrists assess this differently?
“refusing t’ment” removed from criteria, but contained elsewhere in the draft bill
No less restrictive alternative – essentially the same
What is left out?
•
“effectiveness” of treatment must outweigh the negative side effects (from
MHRB caselaw)
•
??
Refusing treatment
• What is autonomy?
– Presumption that all adults have capacity to make decisions (“capacity” /
“competence” – legal terms)
– No treatment without consent – if not, an assault
– Right to consent & right to refuse
– If don’t have capacity  someone else may make decisions (eg.
Enduring Guardian, or Guardianship Order)
• Under current Mental Health Act (MHA)
– If “voluntary patient” – can refuse t’ment prescribed
BUT
– If refuse, could use as evidence to satisfy 4th criterion for involuntary
treatment (“consent”)
• Under new draft bill
– Refusing treatment – no longer part of invol t’ment criteria
– Still no right to refuse treatment
– Even if you do have “decision-making capacity” – can be forcibly given
treatment
Treatment – you & the treating team
New responsibilities of treating team & “treatment planning”
1. Who must be notified when order made?
•
Nominated person – someone you choose
2. Treatment plans
•
•
No TP for inpatients, only for community treatment
views of carer with the consent of person (reverse responsibility)
3. Content of treatment plan
•
•
•
•
Statement of wishes & preferences (eg. advance statement)
Explain how reflects person’s wishes & views of others consulted
Examination of treatment alternatives
Accommodation if discharged into community
5. “Collaborative” treatment-planning
•
with i) person, ii) nominated person & ii) carer with the consent of person
6. Second opinion after 3 months
•
•
Panel of 2nd opinion psychiatrists – must arrange (not employed by MHS)
May i) confirm t’ment or ii) not confirm t’ment  auth psych review TP
Session 1 - Compulsory treatment &
refusing treatment
Summary – key things the draft bill says:
1. Compulsory / involuntary treatment & 5 criteria
remain essentially the same, except
–
–
Psychiatrist cannot extend orders (ITO – 28 days, CTO – 3 months)
Only MH Tribunal can make them
2. Still no right to refuse treatment
3. Extra responsibilities on treating team
-
notifying nominated person when order made
views of carers ONLY AFTER you give your consent (reversed)
TP – wishes & preferences of person, explain how plan reflects these
TP – examination of treatment alternatives, accommodation in comm’ty
Second-opinion after 3 months – appointed by MHS  review of TP
Session 2 – Reviews and appeals &
new Mental Health Tribunal
What does the draft bill say about:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Review officers
When does Mental Health Tribunal review an order?
How does the Mental Health Tribunal review an order?
Legal representation
Reviews & appeals & the
(renamed) Mental Health Tribunal
Still in the draft bill –
•
•
•
•
“Mental Health Tribunal” (MHT) – sits in Department of Health
Responsible for reviewing orders (NOT Assessment order)
Right to appeal  “application for revocation”
3 members in most hearings (single-member now more limited)
but proposed law is different –
•
Doctor OR psychiatrist member of Tribunal
•
“expert” member = consumer? on the Tribunal
•
review officers – new position
•
timing & frequency of review hearings
•
process – hearings, access to files, who can appear
How long before you have hearing?
Current MHA – 8 weeks
Draft Bill – inpatient - 7 weeks (3 days + 3 days + 4 wks + 2 wks extension)
- CTO – over 3 months (3 days + 3 days + 3 months + 2 wks extn)
Current MHA Request &
recommend’n
3 days – taken to
clinic or hospital
for Assessment
Interim ITO
24 hr –auth
psych exam’n
(hospital)
* Immed t’ment
Draft Bill Assessment Order
3 days – to be
taken to hospital
24 hrs x 3 (3
days) detention
in hospital
* Minimum
t’ment - to save
life / distress
Involuntary t’ment
order (ITO)
(hospital) – no limit
Community t’ment
order (CTO)
Extension of CTO (new
CTO - psych)
12 months
12 mths
Inpatient t’ment
order (ITO)
Extended Inpatient
T’ment Order (MHT)
28 days (4 weeks)
6 mths
Community t’ment
order (CTO)
Extended Community
T’ment Order (MHT)
3 months
18 mths
Reviews & appeals & the
(renamed) Mental Health Tribunal
Review officers
•
•
no specific qualifications – “skill and experience necessary”
Not independent (compare Community Visitors, lawyer)
MUST
•
•
•
•
Meet person within 7 days of involuntary order
(ASAP if Assessment Order)
Check order complies with law
“Inform” person of their rights – is this / should this be legal advice?
if error or mistake
 Refer to MHS for “remedial action”
 Apply to MHT if no action
 MHT may “correct”
Reviews & appeals & the
(renamed) Mental Health Tribunal
Process of MHT
•
•
•
access to file – no longer ≥ 24 hrs prior
Some hearings “on the papers” – ie. without person present, and
without anyone from treating team present
Can order person/consumer not attend in person if “would be
significantly detrimental to his/her health”
MHT must make sure
•
•
•
Person has opportunity to be heard / “natural justice” (same as MHA)
person understands what MHT does, its decision, reasons for any
decision
“appeal” determined within 10 business days (2 weeks)
Legal representation
•
•
•
right to lawyer remains
< 10% legal representation
VLA & MHLC cannot meet demand with current funding
Session 2 – Reviews and appeals &
new Mental Health Tribunal
Summary – key things the draft bill says
1. Review officers
-
Not independent, not lawyers
Info on rights & check for errors
2. How soon before reviewed by MHT?
-
Almost the same (inpatient) = 7 weeks ; far longer (CTO) = > 3 months
Less frequent reviews (CTO) - 18 months not 12 months
3. Mental Health Tribunal–
-
Doctor OR psychiatrist member
Can order person not attend, can decide without doctor to cross-examine
Must make sure person understands process, decision & reasons
4. Legal representation
-
Will this be adequately funded?
Session 3 – Supported dec’n-making,
advance statements & nomin’d person
What does the draft bill say about:
1.
2.
Advance directives / “advance statements” – how to make one, status
Nominated person – how to appoint, what is their role
Does the Bill “adopt a supported decision-making approach?”
Supported decision-making
What is it?
Difference between
•
•
you making your own decision, with support from someone else
[supported]
Someone else making the decision on your behalf [substitute]
ie.
•
•
Decision-making WITH
Decision-making FOR
If involuntary patient – authorised psychiatrist = substitute
Advance “statement”
How does Bill define it?
•
•
Written document
Person specifies wishes and preferences:
- How want to be treated
- How don’t want to be treated
- Personal preferences that relate to treatment for mental illness
- Consent or not to obtain family / carer views
Making an advance statement
•
•
•
•
Signed by person
Certification by lawyer, health professional at MHS or authorised witness for
Stat Dec:
- Confirming signature of person
- Person appears to understand the effect
Can withdraw
Latest advance statement automatically revokes earlier one
Advance “statement”
Weight / status?
•
Clinicians & Mental Health Tribunal MUST
- have regard to an advance statement
- If capacity is significantly impaired
How to find out if the person has an advance statement?
•
Check their medical record
Overriding advance statement
•
•
If decision is inconsistent with advance statement, MUST
- Record circumstances & reasons
- Give in writing to person, nominated person, authorised psychiatrist &
Mental Health Commission
Mental Health Commission
- Monitor and report
Nominated person
Role?
•
•
Receive information – when order made, if hearing at MHT, ECT proposed
Being consulted – making involuntary order, treatment
Appointing a nominated person
•
•
•
•
Limited to one
In writing, signed by person
Statement by NP – agrees to being NP
Certification by lawyer, MH professional or authorised witness for Stat Dec:
- Confirming signature of person
- Person appears to understand the effect
- NP agrees
Resignation & revocation
•
•
•
Can resign
Authorised psych can apply to MHT to revoke nomination
- Not appropriate person
Revoke eg. likely to significantly adversely affect the patient’s interests
Session 3 – Supported dec’n-making,
advance statements & nomin’d person
Summary – key things the draft bill says
1. Advance statements
-
Formal recognition of wishes & preferences – included in treatment plan
Certification by lawyer, MH professional, Stat Dec witness
Not enforceable – “have regard to”
Process for overriding – write to person & Mental Health Commission
2. Nominated person
-
Appointed by the person themselves
Limited to one person
Right to be notified & consulted, no decision-making power
May be revoked by MH Tribunal
Session 4 – ECT
What does the draft bill say about:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Who authorises ECT & the process
Role of the Mental Health Tribunal
ECT and young people
Emergency ECT
ECT
Still in the draft bill –
•
•
•
Involuntary ECT
Can refuse ECT treatment if voluntary patient
“emergency” ECT provisions (not used under current MHA)
but proposed law is different –
•
•
•
•
•
•
Increased number of treatments in course – 12 (not 6)
Voluntary patient – auth psych must certify not merely be “satisfied”
benefit & least restrictive
Process for authorising ECT - adults
Process for authorising ECT– young people 13-17yo
MHT’s role and power re: ECT
Criteria for ECT in emergency
ECT
Current MHA Involuntary ECT – authorised psych “satisfied” that:
Clinical merit
discomforts, risks, beneficial alternatives considered
Likely to suffer a significant deterioration in physical or mental condition
Draft Bill –
If involuntary patient – MHT “determines in hearing” informed consent OR
If unable to consent, determines if ECT is for the person’s benefit
MUST consider
- wishes/preferences incl adv stmt
- Views of nominated person
- Family / carer with consent of the person
“reasonably available” alternatives unsuccessful or ECT most appropriate
Young people
-
13-17years – ECT may be performed provided MHT authorises it
Emergency ECT – to save person’s life – no need to go to the MHT
Penalties for not complying with process (previously stated “offence”)
Session 4 – ECT
Summary – key things the draft bill says
1.
2.
3.
4.
Involuntary ECT – adults
MHT not the authorised psychiatrist who authorises
Based on best interests of the person
More onerous requirements on auth psych – (appln + certificate by
reg’d psych + doctor)
Only MHT can authorise ECT on young people 13-17yrs
Emergency ECT - avoids MHT
Auth psych authorises upon written certification by doctor + psych
? can describe ECT as an “emergency” treatment?
Penalties for not complying
Session 5 – Complaints & the Mental Health
Commission
What does the draft bill say about:
1.
2.
3.
The new Mental Health Commission and its role
The Office of the Chief Psychiatrist
Enforcing compliance after complaints
Complaints
Current MHA Office of Chief Psychiatrist – dual role of both:
Peer support/training of mental health service/s
Taking complaints about treatment
No time limits for investigation
Unclear process & outcomes
Complaints
Draft Bill –
•
Newly established Mental Health Commission to take complaints (no longer
with conflicted OCP) - Location similar to Health Services Commissioner
ROLE incl:
Advice & implementation for local complaints
Investigate any matter re: MHS referred by Minister
- Preliminary assessment within 60 days whether action will be taken
Monitor use of advance statements
Monitor numbers of nominated persons
BUT
Not investigation of own motion
POWERS incl:
Conciliate complaint
Formally investigate
Issue compliance notice
OCP – more coordinated audit function
Session 5 – Complaints & Mental Health
Commission
Summary – key things the draft bill says
1.
-
Complaints now in hands of Mental Health Commission, not OCP
Broad power to monitor, report & investigate (except on own motion)
Time limits to respond
Process & powers & responsibilities better definied
Power to conciliate, formally investigate, issue compliance notices
2.
OCP – audit and peer support role
More information
Review of the Mental Health Act – website:
http://www.health.vic.gov.au/mentalhealth/mhactreview/
Submission deadline: Monday 28 February 2011
Mental Health Legal Centre
9th Floor, 10-16 Queen Street
Melbourne
Tel: (03) 9629 4422
Fax: (03) 9614 0488
www.communitylaw.org.au/mentalhealth