Coercive interventions under the new Dutch mental health law: Towards a CRPD-compliant law?

Unlocking the impact of the CRPD on Swedish mental health law

The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) sets out a new vision for mental health care with equality and self-determination as its core standards. The CRPD fundamentally challenges long-standing practices in Sweden including the use of involuntary hospitalization, treatment without consent, and the use of restraints. This article discusses the impact of this new vision on Swedish mental health law and policy. An examination of mental health law inquiries from 2008 to 2023 reveals a notable lack of attention from policymakers towards the CRPD. Nevertheless, the Convention has emerged as a vital advocacy instrument for disability organizations and others opposing proposals that seek to broaden doctors' authority to employ coercion. In addition, the many efforts undertaken to reduce the use of coercion and to enhance the involvement of individuals with psychosocial disabilities in policy development align seamlessly with the principles of the Convention. This article concludes with a reflection on why the CRPD has not assumed a more prominent role in shaping mental health law in Sweden and calls on the government to seriously consider the CRPD's call for equality.

Nigeria's mental health and substance abuse bill 2019: Analysis of its compliance with the United Nations convention on the rights of persons with disabilities

Countries are struggling with reconciling their national mental health legislation with the CRPD approach, which stresses equality as the focal point of legislation, policies, and practices that affect people with disabilities. Several failed attempts have been made over the last two decades to update Nigeria's obsolete mental health legislation. The most recent attempt is the Mental Health and Substance abuse Bill 2019, which aims to protect the rights of people with mental health needs. It addresses many areas neglected by previous bills, such as non-discrimination of people with mental and substance use problems in the exercise of their civil, political, economic, social, full employment, religious, educational, and cultural rights. It categorically prohibits the use of seclusion in the treatment of people with mental health problems, makes provision for service users to be members of the Mental health review tribunal and allows for the protection of privacy and confidentiality of information about people with mental health problems. While keeping to most of WHO's recommendations for mental health legislation, the bill diverges from the CRPD's recommendations by allowing forced admission and treatment based on mental capacity, substitute decision-making by legal representatives or closest relatives, and non-prohibition of coercive practices. The bill does not make provisions for advance directives and is silent on informed consent to participate in research. Despite the bill's deficiencies, it would be a significant step forward for the country, whose current mental health legislation is the Lunacy Act of 1958. Although the CRPD has left it unclear how countries, especially low resource countries, should go about creating a workable legal framework, it is clear that all countries are expected to join the current global effort to eliminate, or at least reduce to the barest minimum, the use of coercion in mental health care. We expect that future revisions of this bill will examine its limitations in light of Nigeria's socio-cultural context.

The Compulsory Care Act: Early Observations and Expectations of In- or Outpatient Involuntary Treatment

BACKGROUND

On January 1, 2020, the Dutch Compulsory Care Act (WvGGZ) replaced the Special Admissions Act (BOPZ). While the old law only allowed compulsory treatment in hospitals, the new law allows it both inside and outside the hospital. Moreover, the new law prioritizes the patient's own opinion on coercive measures. By following patients' own choices, the Compulsory Care Act is hoped to lead to fewer admission days and less inpatient compulsory treatment in involuntarily admitted patients.

METHODS

We studied the seclusion and enforced-medication events before and after January 1, 2020, using coercive measures monitoring data in a Mental Health Trust. Trends in hours of seclusion and the number of enforced-medication events per month from 2012 to 2019 were compared with 2020. We used generalized linear models to perform time series analysis. Logistic regression analyses and generalized linear models were performed to investigate whether patient compilation determined some of the observed changes in seclusion use or enforced-medication events.

RESULTS

The mean number of hours of seclusion between 2012 and 2019 was 27,124 per year, decreasing from 48,542 in 2012 to 21,133 in 2019 to 3,844 h in 2020. The mean incidence of enforced-medication events between 2012 and 2019 was 167, increasing from 90 in 2012 to 361 in 2019 and then fell to 294 in 2020. In 2020, we observed 3,844 h of seclusion and 294 enforced-medication events. Near to no outpatient coercion was reported, even though it was warranted. The time series analysis showed a significant effect of the year 2020 on seclusion hours (β = -1.867; Exp(β) = 0.155, Wald = 27.22, p = 0.001), but not on enforced-medication events [β = 0.48; Exp(β) = 1.616, Wald = 2.33, p = 0.13].

DISCUSSION

There was a reduction in the number of seclusion hours after the introduction of the Compulsory Care Act. The number of enforced-medication events also increased from a very low baseline, but from 2017 onwards. To see whether these findings are consistent over time, they need to be replicated in the near future.

CONCLUSION

We observed a significant increase in enforced-medication use and a decrease in seclusion hours. The year 2020 predicted seclusion hours, but not enforced-medication events.