Is There a Human Legal Right to Mental Health?

B. Kelly, R. Duffy, G. Gulati
{"title":"Is There a Human Legal Right to Mental Health?","authors":"B. Kelly, R. Duffy, G. Gulati","doi":"10.18193/sah.v6i1.191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"While recent decades have seen an increased focus on the idea of rights to health and health care, these ideas were particularly advanced by the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006 and the importance that the World Health Organization attached to the essential role of law in advancing the right to health in 2017. The UN made explicit the rights of persons with mental illness in 1991 with its Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. There are, however, potential disadvantages with legalistic and rights-based approaches to health and health care: protecting rights can be expensive (especially in courts of law), result in paradoxical unfairness (owing to unequal access to legal systems), diminish efficiency and increase opportunity costs (as scarce resources are diverted from care provision), lead to conflict between rights (such as rights to liberty and treatment in severe mental illness) and prioritise individual rights over families and communities in ways that are not always accepted in certain societies. Despite these issues, human rights still offer a credible, logical and generally helpful approach to issues of injustice, such as the unequal distribution of health care. Against this background, India commenced what is effectively the world’s largest experiment in rights-based health care in 2018 when its Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 granted a legally binding right to mental health care to India’s population of over 1.3 billion people, one sixth of the planet's population. The legislation states that ‘every person shall have a right to access mental healthcare and treatment from mental health services run or funded by the appropriate Government’. Realising this right will be complex and challenging in practice, but the experience in India will help inform future debates about the usefulness of rights to health and health care in improving the experiences of the physically and mentally ill around the world, especially among vulnerable groups such as older adults, children, the homeless and others.","PeriodicalId":31069,"journal":{"name":"Studies in Arts and Humanities","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Studies in Arts and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18193/sah.v6i1.191","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

While recent decades have seen an increased focus on the idea of rights to health and health care, these ideas were particularly advanced by the United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2006 and the importance that the World Health Organization attached to the essential role of law in advancing the right to health in 2017. The UN made explicit the rights of persons with mental illness in 1991 with its Principles for the Protection of Persons with Mental Illness and the Improvement of Mental Health Care. There are, however, potential disadvantages with legalistic and rights-based approaches to health and health care: protecting rights can be expensive (especially in courts of law), result in paradoxical unfairness (owing to unequal access to legal systems), diminish efficiency and increase opportunity costs (as scarce resources are diverted from care provision), lead to conflict between rights (such as rights to liberty and treatment in severe mental illness) and prioritise individual rights over families and communities in ways that are not always accepted in certain societies. Despite these issues, human rights still offer a credible, logical and generally helpful approach to issues of injustice, such as the unequal distribution of health care. Against this background, India commenced what is effectively the world’s largest experiment in rights-based health care in 2018 when its Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 granted a legally binding right to mental health care to India’s population of over 1.3 billion people, one sixth of the planet's population. The legislation states that ‘every person shall have a right to access mental healthcare and treatment from mental health services run or funded by the appropriate Government’. Realising this right will be complex and challenging in practice, but the experience in India will help inform future debates about the usefulness of rights to health and health care in improving the experiences of the physically and mentally ill around the world, especially among vulnerable groups such as older adults, children, the homeless and others.
精神健康是人类的合法权利吗?
近几十年来,人们越来越关注健康权和卫生保健权的概念,2006年通过的《联合国残疾人权利公约》和2017年世界卫生组织重视法律在促进健康权方面的重要作用,特别推动了这些概念的发展。1991年,联合国通过了《保护精神病患者和改善精神保健原则》,明确规定了精神病患者的权利。然而,以法律和权利为基础的保健和保健方法存在潜在的缺点:保护权利可能代价高昂(特别是在法庭上),导致矛盾的不公平(由于获得法律制度的机会不平等),降低效率并增加机会成本(因为从提供护理中转移了稀缺资源),导致权利之间的冲突(例如自由权和严重精神疾病的治疗权),并以某些社会并不总是接受的方式将个人权利置于家庭和社区之上。尽管存在这些问题,人权仍然为解决诸如保健分配不平等等不公正问题提供了一种可信、合乎逻辑和总体上有益的办法。在这种背景下,印度于2018年开始了实际上是世界上最大的基于权利的医疗保健实验,2017年《精神卫生法》赋予印度13亿多人口(占地球人口的六分之一)具有法律约束力的精神卫生保健权。该立法规定,"每个人都有权从有关政府管理或资助的精神卫生服务机构获得精神卫生保健和治疗"。实现这一权利在实践中将是复杂和具有挑战性的,但印度的经验将有助于为今后关于健康权和保健权在改善世界各地身心疾病患者,特别是老年人、儿童、无家可归者等弱势群体的经历方面的有用性的辩论提供信息。
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
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
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