The debate about whether mental health law should be abolished or reformed emerged during the negotiations of the Convention on the Right of Persons with Disabilities (‘CRPD’) and has raged fiercely for over a decade. It has resulted in an impasse between abolitionists, States Parties, and other reformers and a literature which has devolved into ‘camps’. Mental Health Law: Abolish or Reform? aims to cut through the confusion using the tools of human rights treaty interpretation backed by a deep jurisprudential analysis of core CRPD concepts—dignity (including autonomy), equality, and participation—to gain a clearer understanding of the meaning of the CRPD and what it requires States Parties to do. In doing so, it sets out the development of both mental health law and the abolitionist movement including its goals and how and why it has emerged now. By digging deeper into the conceptual basis of the CRPD and developing the ‘interpretive compass’, the book aims to flesh out a broader vision of disability rights and move the debate forward by evaluating the three main current abolition and reform options: Abolition with Support, Mental Capacity with Support, and Support Except Where There is Harm. Drawing on jurisprudential and multi-disciplinary research from philosophy, medicine, sociology, disability studies, and history, it argues that mental health law should not be abolished, but should instead be significantly reformed to minimize coercion and maximize the support and choices given to persons with mental impairments to realize of all of their CRPD rights.
The Human Rights Act and Mental Health Law: Has it Helped?