Mental Health Reform, has today responded to a letter by the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission (IHREC), which was sent to Mary Butler T.D., Minister of State for Mental Health regarding the progress of the Mental Health Bill in the Houses of the Oireachtas.
In the correspondence, IHREC recommends that the Mental Health Bill puts in place a legal framework for mental health in Ireland which is fully consistent with Ireland’s obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and other relevant human rights standards.
The Mental Health Bill is set to be reviewed by the Seanad in Committee Stage over the coming weeks.
Read the IHREC publication
The key concerns raised by IHREC in relation to the Bill strongly align with Mental Health Reform’s key asks for reform:
Need for Safeguards around Chemical Restraint
- MHR Position: We have called for better safeguards around chemical restraint to be introduced into the Bill.
- IHREC Submission: “The Mental Health Bill has removed provisions concerning the use of chemical restraint which were included in the general scheme of the Bill. The absence of statutory safeguards is concerning as chemical restraint is not covered in the current Rules or codes of practice in place. The Bill must include provisions concerning the use of chemical restraint, with appropriate safeguards in place.”
Need for Greater Safeguards around Involuntary Detention and Treatment
- MHR Position: We have called for stronger safeguards around involuntary detention/treatment.
- IHREC Submission: “The State must strengthen the procedural safeguards governing involuntary admission” and “Non-consensual use of psychiatric medication in mental health services should be generally prohibited and only used in exceptional circumstances as a measure of last resort.”
Need for Establishment of an Independent Complaints Mechanism
- MHR Position: We have called for the establishment of an independent complaints mechanism to ensure stronger oversight and accountability.
- IHREC Submission: “The Mental Health Bill should provide for the creation of an independent complaints mechanism to receive, investigate and determine complaints from adults and children about mental health services.”
Statutory Right to Independent Advocacy
- MHR Position: We have called for a statutory right to independent advocacy for those accessing mental health services.
- IHREC Submission: “Access to an independent advocate may be critical to a person in exercising their rights under this legislation. We recommend that the right to an advocate be placed on a statutory footing and independent advocacy services be provided, including for children.”
Prohibition on the Admission of Children to Adult Units
- MHR Position: We have expressed concerns that the Bill continues to allow for the admission of children to adult units.
- IHREC Submission: “We continue to call for the Mental Health Bill to explicitly prohibit children from being admitted to an adult inpatient facility. This legislative measure should be accompanied by the increased resourcing of community and age-appropriate mental health supports.” IHREC also notes that the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has urged the government to introduce in legislation “an explicit prohibition of the practice of placing children with mental health issues in adult psychiatric units.”
Removal of the Term ‘Mental Disorder’
- MHR Position: We have called for the term “mental disorder” to be replaced.
- IHREC Submission: “The term ‘mental disorder’ in the Mental Health Bill should be replaced with ‘persons of psychosocial disabilities’, in line with UNCRPD and the human rights model of disability.”
We also note and echo IHREC’s comments in relation to the following:
- “This legislation should be aimed at ensuring less restrictive forms of treatment in the community are available and the ultimate eradication of coercion in the treatment of people with psychosocial disabilities.”
- “Review of the definition of ‘voluntary’ admission is required, which does not address whether the individual has consented to admission or whether they have the capacity to consent, heightening the risk for deprivation of liberty in the absence of appropriate safeguards such as an independent review of the detention. We note the absence of robust procedural safeguards governing the reclassification of patients from voluntary to involuntary status, and the potentially coercive nature of the measures employed.”
- “We have repeatedly raised concerns with the delay of legislation that adequately safeguards individuals at risk and/or deprived of their liberty, including the Protection of Liberty Safeguards Bill and the Inspection of Places of Detention Bill. The provisions of the Bills must be carefully aligned to ensure there is no difference in standards or treatment of individuals under the respective legislation.”