The History, Justification, and Purpose of Mental Health Law

Kay Wilson
{"title":"The History, Justification, and Purpose of Mental Health Law","authors":"Kay Wilson","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780192843258.003.0002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 2 examines the historical development of mental health law in England (which is similar to the rest of the common law world, including America, Canada, and Australia) and uses that history to consider the justification, purpose, and need for mental health law from Ancient Greece to the present. Contrary to the claims of abolitionists that mental health law has essentially always stayed the same, it demonstrates a history of continuous legal and systemic reform in mental health law. Rather than an over-zealous and interfering state keen to exercise social control over persons with mental impairment, it instead depicts a state which for the most part reluctantly only became involved in the care of persons with mental health problems when informal care by family and friends failed or was non-existent, to prevent abuses by private operators, and as an incident of its administration of the criminal law. When set against the background of the fashions, cycles, and recurring themes of mental health law, the call of abolition can be conceptualized as simply the latest fad in its evolution. Further, many of the issues which arise from mental health problems will continue to exist even without mental health law. Mental health law can be positive and negative, including defining and protecting rights and allocating resources. The chapter cautions against being too optimistic about the promises of sweeping revolutionary changes which have never really delivered (deinstitutionalization or the ‘abolition’ of the asylum being the most poignant example), in favour of solid incremental change.","PeriodicalId":81815,"journal":{"name":"Law and mental health","volume":"19 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Law and mental health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780192843258.003.0002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Chapter 2 examines the historical development of mental health law in England (which is similar to the rest of the common law world, including America, Canada, and Australia) and uses that history to consider the justification, purpose, and need for mental health law from Ancient Greece to the present. Contrary to the claims of abolitionists that mental health law has essentially always stayed the same, it demonstrates a history of continuous legal and systemic reform in mental health law. Rather than an over-zealous and interfering state keen to exercise social control over persons with mental impairment, it instead depicts a state which for the most part reluctantly only became involved in the care of persons with mental health problems when informal care by family and friends failed or was non-existent, to prevent abuses by private operators, and as an incident of its administration of the criminal law. When set against the background of the fashions, cycles, and recurring themes of mental health law, the call of abolition can be conceptualized as simply the latest fad in its evolution. Further, many of the issues which arise from mental health problems will continue to exist even without mental health law. Mental health law can be positive and negative, including defining and protecting rights and allocating resources. The chapter cautions against being too optimistic about the promises of sweeping revolutionary changes which have never really delivered (deinstitutionalization or the ‘abolition’ of the asylum being the most poignant example), in favour of solid incremental change.
精神卫生法的历史、理由和目的
第二章考察了英国精神卫生法的历史发展(这与包括美国、加拿大和澳大利亚在内的其他普通法国家相似),并利用这段历史来考虑从古希腊到现在精神卫生法的理由、目的和必要性。与废除主义者声称精神卫生法基本上一直保持不变的说法相反,它展示了精神卫生法持续的法律和系统改革的历史。它不是一个热衷于对精神残疾者实行社会控制的过分热心和干预的国家,而是描述了这样一个国家,在大多数情况下,只有在家庭和朋友的非正式照顾失败或不存在时,才不情愿地参与照顾有精神健康问题的人,以防止私人经营者的虐待,并作为其刑法管理的一个事件。在精神卫生法的潮流、周期和反复出现的主题的背景下,废除死刑的呼吁可以被简单地理解为其演变中的最新时尚。此外,即使没有精神卫生法,由精神健康问题引起的许多问题也将继续存在。精神卫生法可以是积极的,也可以是消极的,包括界定和保护权利以及分配资源。这一章告诫人们不要过于乐观地看待那些从未真正实现的全面革命性变革的承诺(去机构化或“废除”收容所是最尖锐的例子),而要支持坚实的渐进式变革。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书