IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i1p106-127..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Study into the Operation of the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal

Author

Listed:
  • Sam Boyle
  • Tamara Walsh
  • Lucinda Nelson

Abstract

The Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal makes difficult decisions regarding involuntary treatment of people with mental illness, applying strict legislative criteria against a backdrop of fundamental human rights considerations. This article reports on focus group research with lawyers and advocates for people with mental illness who appear before the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal. Participants expressed concerns regarding the manner in which decisions are made. For example, participants said that their clients’ views on the side effects of treatment do not receive adequate consideration when involuntary treatment is authorised. We review these concerns in the light of applicable legal obligations, including those arising from human rights law. We conclude that if these concerns are accurate, some adjustments to the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal’s decision-making processes are required.

Suggested Citation

  • Sam Boyle & Tamara Walsh & Lucinda Nelson, 2021. "A Study into the Operation of the Queensland Mental Health Review Tribunal," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(1), pages 106-127.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:1:p:106-127.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwaa043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:1:p:106-127.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.