|
Post by Admin on Mar 18, 2022 14:26:01 GMT
UN To Review The UK’s Performance On Human Rights By Emma Guy, Editor 14 Mar 2022 eachother.org.uk/un-to-review-the-uks-performance-on-human-rights/Every five years the UK undergoes a ‘human rights health check’, during which other members of the United Nations Human Rights Council review the UK’s commitment to upholding our rights. This year, it will take place following the government’s consultation on its plans to overhaul the Human Rights Act (HRA). This ‘health check’ process is called the Universal Periodic Review (UPR). Rather than focussing on one treaty or specific human rights laws, whether they be ratified under domestic or international law, the human rights ‘health check’ will evaluate the UK’s ability to protect, promote and fulfil human rights obligations across all of the UK’s constituent nations. The review will formally take place in Geneva, Switzerland, in November 2022, where other UN member states will ask the UK questions about how it is honouring its commitments to human rights. At a time where the UK government has been consulting on overhauling the HRA, it is likely the upcoming ‘health check’ will also query where the Government believes improvements can be made. In the lead-up to the review in November, the UK Government is currently drafting a report on how it believes it is meeting its commitments. As well as this government ‘self-assessment’, civil society organisations will also submit their own ‘shadow’ reports, to provide UN member states with a holistic account of how the government is performing in terms of standing up for human rights across the UK. The government’s ‘self-assessment’ report The Ministry of Justice will be leading the government’s report ahead of the review, including being responsible for drafting the documents, and will report to the UN. The Ministry will also consult and engage with civil society to inform the report. Just Fair attended a roundtable in January to speak with representatives from the Ministry of Justice to discuss human rights in the UK. The charity stated: During the event we raised issues, including the current threat to the Human Rights Act, increasing inequality in the UK, the availability of good quality employment opportunities and the right to work for asylum seekers. What will be assessed? According to the United Nations Human Rights Council, the UPR will assess the extent to which states respect people’s human rights, which are set out under: The UN Charter The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Voluntary pledges and commitments made by the state (e.g. national human rights policies and/or programmes implemented) Applicable international humanitarian law Are states held accountable? The responsibility to implement changes will fall on the UK government. While the UN says that the UPR ensures that all countries are accountable for progress or failure in implementing its recommendations, they have stated that they will address cases where states fail to cooperate. The United Nations Human Rights Council stated: “During the second review, the State is expected to provide information on what they have been doing to implement the recommendations made during the first review, as well as on any developments in the field of human rights.” The international community will play their part in offering recommendations and, if necessary, the UN “will address cases where States are not co-operating”. The last such review saw ‘damning’ reports from civil liberty groups The UK’s last such review, in 2016, saw several damning reports, including one from the British Institute of Human Rights (BIHR). The evidence provided by BIHR and Just Fair expressed real concern about austerity and standards of living in the UK. An adequate standard of living is protected by Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as being relevant to a number of rights in the HRA. During the last review, BIHR stated: “Both the measures in the Welfare Reform Act 2012 and the more recent Welfare Reform and Work Act 2016 are having a real and significant impact on some of the most vulnerable members of society. Perhaps the most well-known reform is the infamous ‘bedroom tax’, where welfare benefits are removed for those under-occupying, introduced to encourage families to move out of social housing deemed ‘too big’.” A primary concern, which may be echoed in this year’s report, related to people having their benefits sanctioned. BIHR were concerned about the caps on benefits and pitfalls in the social security system that led to people being left, in some cases, without money for months: “Another reform that is failing to protect human rights, but also failing to meet the Government’s objective, is the use of benefit sanctions to those in receipt of Job Seekers’ Allowance. Introduced to encourage individuals to get back into employment, welfare benefits are stopped for days, weeks or months if the recipient does not meet certain conditions, including being late for appointments or failing to update their CV.” In 2016, BIHR acknowledged that the government may move to overhaul the HRA, which it labelled a “regressive and negative” prospect. This time, the UPR is taking place against the backdrop BIHR predicted – the government’s proposed HRA reforms, which raise significant questions about the state’s commitment to protect and fulfil civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights across the UK. How you can have your say If you work for a non-governmental organisation (NGO), you can get involved in the UN’s periodic review of the UK’s performance on human rights by submitting your own report to the UN by the 31 March 2022. Reports must be submitted through this online portal, so do make sure you register beforehand. If you want to find out more about this process, you can contact Helen Flyn, Head of Policy, Research and Campaigns at Just Fair.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 21, 2022 14:46:29 GMT
PROJECT RAW The Rights and Wellbeing RAW summit heralds the launch of an exciting project aimed at providing resources, group workshops and individual support to equip individuals with rights education to reduce the harm of police encounters. RAW will also address the broader impacts of stop and search, providing therapeutic support to help people process and deal with the impacts of stop and search and the after-effects. www.stop-watch.org/what-we-do/projects/raw/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 28, 2022 21:12:23 GMT
Progress on UN rights convention ‘has regressed and stagnated across UK’ By John Pring on 24th March 2022 Category: Human Rights www.disabilitynewsservice.com/progress-on-un-rights-convention-has-regressed-and-stagnated-across-uk/Progress on disability rights in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland has stalled in many areas in the last five years, and in some parts has even regressed, according to reports by national disabled people’s organisations (DPOs). The three DPOs told a parliamentary meeting that the impact of the pandemic and a decade of austerity had delayed progress towards implementing the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). Inclusion Scotland, Disability Wales and Disability Action in Northern Ireland have each been working with other DPOs to prepare “shadow reports” on how the convention has been implemented since 2017. The all-party parliamentary group on disability heard that their reports showed that disabled people were struggling with poverty, discrimination and the “devastating impact” of the COVID-19 pandemic. Nuala Toman, head of policy for Disability Action Northern Ireland, said that rights had regressed in Northern Ireland since 2017, with the continuing political instability, a decade of austerity, welfare reform and the pandemic all playing a part. She pointed to issues including the continued use of restraint and seclusion in health and educational settings, segregated education, significant evidence of abuse and degrading treatment in institutions, increasing levels of disability hate crime, and disabled people living in poverty and having to rely on foodbanks. And she said there was a “continuing disparity” between the lesser legal protection from discrimination available to disabled people in Northern Ireland compared with the rest of the UK, an issue that was exposed by the pandemic. Toman told the meeting: “We require the legal incorporation of the UNCRPD into law if we are to advance the rights of Deaf and disabled people.” Rhian Davies, chief executive of Disability Wales, said it was impossible to escape the impact of more than 10 years of austerity on disabled people in Wales. Although the Welsh government had attempted some “mitigation” for the policies of the UK government, the day-to-day reality of life for many disabled people in Wales was a “sense of weariness and the daily grind of living”, she said. She said the Welsh government had published its Action on Disability framework on independent living, which was under-pinned by the UNCRPD, and had introduced the Access to Elected Office Fund Wales, as well as committing to incorporating the convention into Welsh law. But she said the pandemic had exposed the “deep inequality” in Wales, with “widespread breaches of disabled people’s human rights”, such as the suspension of social care assessments and the imposition of “do not attempt resuscitation” notices. Davies told the online meeting that she was “sad and shocked” that disabled people had made up 68 per cent of all COVID-related deaths in Wales. She said: “What we saw was the very right to life of disabled people impacted in the most fundamental way. “[There was] very much the sense of the lives of disabled people being devalued and disregarded.” She said: “What is clear from the engagement we did with disabled people in Wales around the UNCRPD report is the implementation gap between often very good intentions in terms of Welsh government policy and legislation and the actual delivery on the ground.” Davies said there was a “sense of disabled people just feeling worn down by the system, literally ground down, having to fight every single day for the right to basic entitlements. “Poverty levels among disabled people remain high in Wales and while most of this has been imposed by the UK government’s austerity measures, and they hold most of the levers of power and control around things like benefits, tax and pensions, there are areas where the Welsh government does have control, does have some levers, and those need to be used much more effectively.” Rebecca McGregor, policy and research officer for Inclusion Scotland, said the situation in Scotland since 2017 had been one of “stagnation”, despite some “small improvements”. She said the danger is that “things can look better” in Scotland when compared to England, but that “disabled people in Scotland are still experiencing worse outcomes [than non-disabled people] in pretty much every area”. She said there was an “implementation gap” in Scotland, with “a lot of good rhetoric from the Scottish government” which “doesn’t always result in real change”, which was why it was “so essential” to incorporate the UNCRPD into Scottish law, as the Scottish government has promised. McGregor said the shadow report showed that disabled people’s rights in Scotland “still aren’t met through all areas of life and throughout the life course”, with breaches of their rights in education, employment, housing, transport, health, social care, and in social protection, as well as the “devastating impact” of the pandemic. She said public attitudes towards disabled people had worsened during the pandemic, following years of austerity in which disabled people had been “portrayed as scroungers and second-class citizens by the structures and institutions that are supposed to be there to protect them”. But she said there was “cause for optimism”, with the planned incorporation of the UNCRPD into Scottish law and the devolution of disability benefits, both of which have been welcomed by disabled people in Scotland. The three shadow reports – along with a report focusing on England (see separate story) – will be submitted to the UN’s committee on the rights of persons with disabilities (CRPD), along with a UK-wide report. The UN committee will use the shadow reports – and other evidence – to help it draw up a list of questions to put to the UK government, and the three devolved governments, which will have a year to respond in writing, before being examined by the committee.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Apr 4, 2022 14:23:40 GMT
In 2014, Dr. Dainius Pūras became the first medical doctor to be appointed by the UN Human Rights Council as Special Rapporteur on the right to physical and mental health. Throughout his tenure, Dr. Pūras pushed for a paradigm shift in mental health care, writing several ground-breaking reports. As a researcher and human rights advocate, Dr. Pūras has led and actively participated in projects at the national and international level in public mental health, policies and services for children and families at risk, rights of children with developmental disabilities, and violence prevention. He is a professor at Vilnius University, Lithuania, and the director of the Human Rights Monitoring Institute, an NGO based in Vilnius. A Brief Timeline: The right to mental health at the Human Rights Council www.handover-dialogues.org/legacy/UN SPECIAL RAPPORTEUR ON THE RIGHT TO HEALTH www.handover-dialogues.org/
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 10, 2022 15:51:48 GMT
Boris Johnson warned Britain could face EU sanctions over assault on Human Rights Act contained in Queen’s Speech Human Right Group Liberty is among those who have warned that the decision to scrap the Human Rights Act could have dire consequences leftfootforward.org/2022/05/boris-johnson-warned-britain-could-face-eu-sanctions-over-assault-on-human-rights-act-contained-in-queens-speech/Among the 38 bills being announced by the government today in the Queen’s speech, is a bill to replace the Human Rights Act with a new bill of rights. The former is a crucial piece of legislation that allowed so many to hold the state to account and seek justice. It’s a sad day for our democracy and yet another shameless power grab by this government. Human Right Group Liberty is among those who have warned that the decision to scrap the Human Rights Act could have dire consequences and is ‘part of this Government’s much broader plan to increase its own power, remove itself from public accountability and to fundamentally change the relationship between the individual and State’. The human rights membership organisation says that Raab’s proposed Bill of Rights – expected to be unveiled in the Queen’s Speech today, will ‘dismantle the system which currently protects us all and is used by thousands of people every year to enforce their rights – from soldiers, to disabled people, to journalists’. It adds: “Raab’s plan risks eroding our right to live dignified lives, while also reducing protections against the State spying on us, protest rights, and protections for vulnerable people”. The group also warns that the Government wants to remove safeguards that make it harder for them to make regulations that are fundamentally unfair or that breach human rights law. The Human Rights Act had placed all state bodies under a legal obligation to respect human rights. If they were in breach it would be possible to take them to court, yet the government’s proposals would make it much harder to challenge public bodies. As a result of its repeal, it could make it harder to challenge police when they fail to investigate violence against women and girls, and could also block bereaved families and victims from seeking truth and justice. The Independent also reports that an expert on EU law has warned that the UK risks sanctions from the EU if it waters down human rights protections, as people are increasingly forced to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), ‘as they did before the HRA’s introduction in 1998, raising the prospect of repeated fines for the UK government from the Strasbourg judges’. An exclusive letter reported on by the Guardian which has been signed by more than 50 organisations has also warned of severe consequences if the Human Rights Act were repealed, including removing obligations to properly address violence against women and girls and destabilising peace in Northern Ireland. Liberty’s Director, Martha Spurrier, said of the campaign: “Scrapping the Human Rights Act poses a real, imminent threat to rights in the UK. It’s a blatant, unashamed power grab from a Government that wants to put those in power above the law. They are quite literally rewriting the rules in their favour so they become untouchable. “The Human Rights Act has empowered people in the UK to enforce their rights in practice. It has enabled people to challenge unlawful policies, be treated with dignity by public authorities and secure justice for their loved ones. It has changed the way that we are treated in schools, hospitals and care homes, improving everyday life for people across the country. “The Government’s plan is to weaken and undermine this, taking power away from the public to take for themselves. We all know this Government cannot be trusted to keep its word or play by the rules. We’re urging everyone to not let them get away with this looting of our rights. Speak up and make your voice heard.” Basit Mahmood is editor of Left Foot Forward As you’re here, we have something to ask you. What we do here to deliver real news is more important than ever. But there’s a problem: we need readers like you to chip in to help us survive. We deliver progressive, independent media, that challenges the right’s hateful rhetoric. Together we can find the stories that get lost. We’re not bankrolled by billionaire donors, but rely on readers chipping in whatever they can afford to protect our independence. What we do isn’t free, and we run on a shoestring. Can you help by chipping in as little as £1 a week to help us survive? Whatever you can donate, we’re so grateful - and we will ensure your money goes as far as possible to deliver hard-hitting news. Related Posts: Why we must oppose Dominic Raab’s staged demolition of the Human Rights Act Millions in UK face disenfranchisement under voter ID plans which could breach human rights law, report warns The Tories’ shameful silence over human rights abuses in Sri Lanka Amnesty International warns of “unprecedented programme of rights reversal” by the government
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 24, 2022 11:02:17 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flyingcarpet46 on Jul 2, 2022 9:37:49 GMT
UK Government publishes ‘Bill of Rights’ to replace Human Rights Act
These legislative proposals will roll back human rights rather than uphold them
Date published
28 June 2022
Location
UK
Related professional interest
Ethics and human rights
Social justice, poverty, housing and economy
Social work history, policies and reform
The UK Government has published its ‘Bill of Rights’, which has received its First Reading in the House of Commons.
The Bill is designed to replace the Human Rights Act and is extraordinarily complex. It is not user-friendly and therefore it's more difficult for people not working in law-related professions to understand how it changes the way in which claims of human rights breaches will be dealt with by the courts.
You can read the Bill of Rights Bill and accompanying explanation notes via the Parliament website.
The complexity of the Bill may make the legislation seem to be only of minority interest, but its effects will be far-reaching
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 6, 2022 21:45:12 GMT
Human Rights and Clinical Psychology in the United Kingdom from 1948 to 2018: A Critical Historical Analysis Christopher Jones A thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the University of East London for the Professional Doctorate Degree in Clinical Psychology core.ac.uk/download/237431605.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 3, 2022 18:19:25 GMT
Researchers Champion Human Rights Based Approach to Psychosocial Disability Even as countries ratify the CRPD, many policies are still in direct opposition to the human rights standards for psychosocial disability. By Richard Sears -August 2, 2022 www.madinamerica.com/2022/08/researchers-champion-human-rights-based-approach-psychosocial-disability/In a new article published in the World Association for Psychosocial Rehabilitation Bulletin, Peter McGovern and his colleagues explore the continued human rights violations of people with a psychosocial disability in mental healthcare systems. They draw particular attention to how practitioners and policymakers can implement existing frameworks to mitigate these violations. The authors argue that a recovery-centered approach utilizing the World Health Organization’s QualityRights initiative can create mental healthcare systems that uphold fundamental human rights as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of People with Disabilities (CRPD). They write: “This shift to a new model of understanding places the person and citizen in the center of all decisions about their lives. Furthermore, it empowers the citizen as a person with a right to be included in their community. Mental health services are viewed as an important tool, among many others, in the armory of a person navigating the complexities of a mental health condition or psychosocial disability, as well as an opportunity to recover citizenship. It is for the person to decide which tools are helpful for their recovery journey and when they should be deployed.” The CRPD was ratified at the U.N. in 2006 and since has been adopted by many nations. The central goal of the CRPD is to protect people with disabilities from discrimination and ensure they enjoy all the freedoms of their non-disabled counterparts. To this end, the CRPD declares that all people with disabilities, including mental health issues, should be allowed to make their own treatment choices and should not be involuntarily confined. This would require a radical reevaluation of mental healthcare systems in many countries and a move away from a medical model towards a social one. People with mental health diagnoses experience increased instances of prejudice and discrimination, both in their communities and through systematic denial of rights, including but not limited to involuntary confinement and treatment. For example, in the United States, all but ten states still systematically exclude people with psychosocial disabilities from exercising their right to vote. Stigma and discrimination have been linked to the biomedical model of mental health. Conversely, psychosocial explanations, like those championed by recovery-oriented treatment, have reduced stigma. Research has found that while mental health literacy does not reduce stigma, psychosocial approaches do. Research has also shown that stigma is more associated with labeling than behavior. For example, if a person repeatedly looks out their window and we label that person “strange,” they will experience less stigma than if we label them “paranoid.” The public appetite for coercive, human rights violating treatments for people with psychosocial disabilities is linked to both stigmas around mental illness and lack of education. Recovery-oriented services, like the ones championed by the current work, lead to less stigma around mental illness while simultaneously benefiting providers. The current work begins by laying out the landscape of mental healthcare in Norway. While they have adopted many progressive policies, such as an increase in community-oriented approaches and strengthening user involvement, they retain an allegiance to the problematic biomedical model of mental health and continue the emphasis on hyper-individualization that can often ignore systematic problems. Moreover, while Norway ratified the CRPD in 2013, it has yet to incorporate its principles into law due mainly to the requirement in Norway to coerce people with psychosocial disabilities into various forms of treatment, including involuntary confinement. In place of the overemphasis on biomedical, highly individualized explanations and the human rights violating treatments of the current paradigm in mental health, the authors offer a recovery perspective informed by the World Health Organization’s QualityRights initiative. This kind of treatment emphasizes six different aspects of recovery: Connectedness: Relationships are central to recovery, and everyone in a community should have access to the same recovery resources as everyone else. Hope: People must be able to see their situation improving in the future in order for recovery to be possible. Identity: This approach emphasizes the freedom to reconnect, rebuild, and redefine identity without “internalized oppression and self-stigma.” Meaning in life: Supporting the building (or rebuilding) of meaning in various ways Empowerment: Giving people control and choice over their recovery and treatment Risk: Making room for people to take risks and make mistakes For the authors, these aspects of the recovery model are linked to the concept of “citizenship” in mental healthcare; the rights, responsibilities, roles, resources, and relationships of a functioning member of society. As a marginalized group, there are two basic pathways to “citizenship” for those with psychosocial disabilities. First is the individual effort to access full citizenship. Second is the responsibility of society to open access to “citizenship.” In this model, responsibility for “citizenship” lies both with individual efforts and societal scaffolding. The World Health Organization’s QualityRights initiative was designed to improve mental healthcare quality and promote the rights of people with psychosocial disabilities. To this end, the QualityRights initiative revolves around four basic principles: addressing stigma and human rights violations, supporting countries in developing sensible mental health policies, including service user experiences in mental health discussions and debates, and supporting law reform to bring countries more in line with the CRPD. The authors believe this approach can help the public view people with psychosocial disabilities as full citizens and change attitudes towards mental illness while empowering everyone involved in mental health systems to promote human rights. The authors ultimately believe that the key to empowering individual recovery is to correct systematic barriers to full civic participation. The framework described by the authors calls for a paradigm of support rather than prescription. Recovery is not a one-size-fits-all arrangement but an intricate tapestry of overlapping areas of influence. By recognizing the basic right of each individual to walk their own path of recovery and emphasizing support in that journey, the authors believe this framework could vastly improve the lives of many people across the world while mitigating the abuses and human rights violations that commonly occur in the current mental health system in many nations. They conclude: “It is imperative that we move away from societies and services that coerce people into complying with treatments or interventions they do not find helpful. Particularly when they may recreate the trauma of violence or control that many of our service users have already been victims of. Freedom, the right to make your own decisions, and taking back control of one’s own narrative is therapeutic and should be the cornerstone of all modern and progressive mental health services.” **** McGovern P, Ellingsdalen M, Borg M. (2022). Reclaiming citizenship through rights-based, person-centered, and recovery-oriented mental health services. WAPR BULLETIN. 48 (Link) www.wapr.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/WAPR_Bulletin_48.pdf
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Aug 4, 2022 21:32:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by flyingcarpet46 on Aug 5, 2022 9:05:42 GMT
Will have to read this. I see an article of mine is referenced. Breakfast first.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jan 23, 2023 21:49:36 GMT
Allies for Human Rights in Mental Health: Psychiatric Survivor David W. Oaks Interviews WHO Psychiatrist Benedetto Saraceno By David W. Oaks -January 21, 2023 www.madinamerica.com/2023/01/oaks-interviews-benedetto-saraceno/Dr. Benedetto Saraceno is an Italian psychiatrist, advocate of mental health reforms, and friend. From 2000 to 2010, he was the director of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse of the World Health Organization (WHO). It was at the headquarters for WHO in Geneva, Switzerland, where I first met Benedetto, and he soon became a friend.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 10, 2023 9:42:02 GMT
Global Push for Human Rights in Mental Healthcare Gains Momentum Scoping review highlights policy-level initiatives to promote voluntary care and human rights in mental healthcare. By Samantha Lilly -May 5, 2023 www.madinamerica.com/2023/05/global-push-for-human-rights-in-mental-healthcare-gains-momentum/In their 2022 position paper, the World Psychiatric Association (WPA) called for international support to find, implement, and safeguard alternatives to psychiatric coercion and ensure the protection of human rights in mental healthcare. This statement reflects recent advances in international human rights law, particularly the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), which provides a framework for mental healthcare that protects and promotes human rights. Following the WPA’s position paper, authors Bernadette McSherry, Piers Gooding, and Yvette Maker conducted a scoping review to examine the recent literature published on human rights, mental healthcare, and the CRPD to gauge international efforts to safeguard human rights and curb coercion. Published in BMJ Open, the article “Human rights promotion and the ‘Geneva impasse’ in mental healthcare: a scoping review” pays special attention to the “Geneva impasse.” The Geneva Impasse points to the seemingly irreconcilable conflict between those who believe that compulsory care/involuntary commitment can never comply with human rights law and those who argue that compulsory care/involuntary commitment can comply, given the right conditions. “Breaking through the so-called ‘Geneva impasse’ might seem difficult at first glance. However, although dis- agreements about the legitimacy of compulsory treatment and coercive practices persist, there is optimism that these practices can be reduced, and attention is turning to how best to achieve this,” the authors write. “The importance of implementing a rights-based approach to mental healthcare is not only the subject of commentary on the CRPD but has also been recognized in legislation.” The United Nations Human Rights Council resolutions on mental health and human rights highlight the need for states to integrate a human rights perspective into mental health and community services, promoting full inclusion and effective participation in society. The CRPD combines civil and political rights, such as the right to liberty and equality, with economic, social, and cultural rights, stressing the interconnectedness of these rights rather than dividing them into categories. Fundamental rights include the right to life, equal recognition before the law, liberty and security, respect for physical and mental integrity, living in the community, education, and the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health without discrimination. The debate has emerged over the interpretation of the CRPD regarding compulsory treatment and substituted decision-making in mental healthcare. Some argue that legislation enabling treatment without consent should be abolished, while others believe it is permissible in exceptional circumstances. However, the focus of recent literature has shifted towards promoting human rights in mental healthcare through practical measures such as psychiatric advance directives, supported decision-making models, and human rights training for service providers, patients, families, and carers. The scoping review utilized a doctrinal approach to identify the most recent legal understandings and policy precedents concerning curbing coercion and defending human rights in mental healthcare across different countries and cultures. The authors identified multiple treaties and commentaries through the United Nations Treaty Collection, allowing for a streamlined literature review of edited collections, books, articles, reports, working papers, and government documents. All searches were restricted to English-language results published over ten years (2012–2022). One hundred-one (101) individual study-specific results were left after excluding studies that did not fit the project’s scope. The scoping review results reveal that most literature touches on and talks about the Geneva impasse, indicating that the WPA’s call for protecting human rights and reducing coercion in mental healthcare can be taken seriously and is already being discussed universally. “International treaties establish that human rights are inherent to all human beings, regardless of status. There has been a persistent view in the literature that there are two categories of rights…What is significant about the CRPD is that it combines both sets of rights into one treaty and challenges the notion that rights can be divided into categories, instead stressing their interconnectedness.” Utilizing the CRPD, the authors see a potential to move beyond the Geneva impasse and implement meaningful rights-based changes across countries and continents. Perhaps one of the most promising conclusions of their study is that discussions bridging the Geneva impasse are already being discussed on the policy level in Australia and Europe. Organizations like the Council of Europe and European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) are working on initiatives to promote voluntary care and implement a rights-based approach to mental healthcare. For example, the Mental Health and Wellbeing Act 2022 in Victoria, Australia, emphasizes the importance of providing mental health services that protect and promote the human rights and dignity of people with psychosocial disabilities. Unfortunately, a significant limitation of this scoping review is that it was only conducted in English, leaving out major swaths of the world that are leaders in rights-based approaches to mental healthcare, particularly Latin America. Moreover, although the CRPD is catalyzing meaningful change globally, the US has not ratified the CRPD leaving us with a disjointed inability to bridge the Geneva impasse. The consensus among experts is that coercion in mental healthcare should be reduced and the range of voluntary options for support expanded. This shift towards a human rights-based approach to mental healthcare emphasizes the importance of offering services rather than imposing them, promoting the rights of persons with disabilities, and encouraging their full inclusion and participation in society. **** McSherry, B., Gooding, P., & Maker, Y. (2023). Human rights promotion and the ‘Geneva impasse’ in mental healthcare: scoping review. BJPsych Open, 9(3), e58. (Link) *** Mad in America hosts blogs by a diverse group of writers. These posts are designed to serve as a public forum for a discussion—broadly speaking—of psychiatry and its treatments. The opinions expressed are the writers’ own.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 28, 2023 19:45:43 GMT
www.who.int/news/item/10-06-2021-new-who-guidance-seeks-to-put-an-end-to-human-rights-violations-in-mental-health-careNew WHO guidance seeks to put an end to human rights violations in mental health care 10 June 2021 News release Reading time: 2 min (613 words) العربية 中文 Français Русский Español Globally, the majority of mental health care continues to be provided in psychiatric hospitals, and human rights abuses and coercive practices remain all too common. But providing community-based mental health care that is both respectful of human rights and focused on recovery is proving successful and cost-effective, according to new guidance released today by the World Health Organization. Mental health care recommended in the new guidance should be located in the community and should not only encompass mental health care but also support for day-to-day living, such as facilitating access to accommodation and links with education and employment services. WHO’s new “Guidance on community mental health services: promoting person-centred and rights-based approaches” further affirms that mental health care must be grounded in a human rights-based approach, as recommended by the WHO Comprehensive Mental Health Action Plan 2020-2030 endorsed by the World Health Assembly in May 2021. Much faster transition to redesigned mental health services required “This comprehensive new guidance provides a strong argument for a much faster transition from mental health services that use coercion and focus almost exclusively on the use of medication to manage symptoms of mental health conditions, to a more holistic approach that takes into account the specific circumstances and wishes of the individual and offers a variety of approaches for treatment and support,” said Dr Michelle Funk of the Department of Mental Health and Substance Use, who led the development of the guidance. Since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) in 2006, an increasing number of countries have sought to reform their laws, policies and services related to mental health care. However, to date, few countries have established the frameworks necessary to meet the far-reaching changes required by international human rights standards. Reports from around the world highlight that severe human rights abuses and coercive practices are still far too common in countries of all income levels. Examples include forced admission and forced treatment; manual, physical and chemical restraint; unsanitary living conditions; and physical and verbal abuse. The majority of government mental health budgets still goes to psychiatric hospitals According to WHO’s latest estimates, governments spend less than 2% of their health budgets on mental health. Furthermore, the majority of reported expenditure on mental health is allocated to psychiatric hospitals, except in high-income countries where the figure is around 43%. The new guidance, which is intended primarily for people with responsibility for organizing and managing mental health care, presents details of what is required in areas such as mental health law, policy and strategy, service delivery, financing, workforce development and civil society participation in order for mental health services to be compliant with the CRPD. It includes examples from countries including Brazil, India, Kenya, Myanmar, New Zealand, Norway and the United Kingdom of community-based mental health services that have demonstrated good practices in respect of non-coercive practices, community inclusion, and respect of people’s legal capacity (i.e. the right to make decisions about their treatment and life). Services include crisis support, mental health services provided within general hospitals, outreach services, supported living approaches and support provided by peer groups. Information about financing and results of evaluations of the services presented are included. Cost comparisons provided indicate that the community-based services showcased produce good outcomes, are preferred by service users and can be provided at comparable cost to mainstream mental health services. “Transformation of mental health service provision must, however, be accompanied by significant changes in the social sector,” said Gerard Quinn, UN Special Rapporteur on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. “Until that happens, the discrimination that prevents people with mental health conditions from leading full and productive lives will continue.”
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 12, 2024 22:37:43 GMT
Edenfield Centre: Vulnerable patients denied human rights - review www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-68142578By Ewan Gawne & Kara O'Neill BBC News Patients who were filmed being mistreated at an NHS mental health unit were denied "basic dignity and their human rights", a review has found. A BBC Panorama investigation found a "toxic culture of humiliation, verbal abuse and bullying" at the Edenfield Centre in Prestwich near Manchester. Some staff members were sacked or suspended following the 2022 broadcast. Greater Manchester Mental Health Trust (GMMH) said it was "truly sorry" and committed to a "much-improved future". The independent report, led by Prof Oliver Shanley OBE, found the trust repeatedly missed opportunities to act on concerns, alongside a culture of "suppressing bad news". It found the Panorama broadcast exposed the "most shocking abuse and poor care" of vulnerable patients, and that concerns raised by families were "not always taken seriously". It added that in some services, patients had been denied "basic dignity and their human rights". I went undercover to expose mental health hospital abuse Revealed: Mental health unit's 'toxic culture' of abuse Review launched into abuse at mental health unit During the Panorama investigation, staff were filmed using restraint inappropriately and swearing at and slapping patients, while some of those being cared for endured long seclusions in small, bare rooms. More than 400 people shared their experiences with the review, which found a "striking level of distress among patients, families, and staff". The report heard from a patient's family member who tried to raise issues but was ignored. "The trust seem like they are firefighting and walking from room to room with fire, and petrol already in the room, smoking a cigarette," they said. The report found several key reasons why the abuse and poor care of patients took place, including: Patient, family and carer concerns were ignored or not taken seriously Staff levels were unsafe, with a high use of temporary workers A poor leadership culture, low staff morale, and a lack of transparency Some staff described being treated unfairly because of a protected characteristic. A number of leaders at the trust were said to have "lacked compassion and empathy", with senior managers fostering "a culture of fear and intimidation" among staff to "maintain performance standards". The board of the trust had focused on "expansion, reputation and meeting operational targets" rather than the quality of care given to patients, the report found. But the review's authors also said they spoke to "a great many members of staff who were passionate, evidently talented and highly committed to their patients". Eighteen months before the Panorama investigation, Rowan Thompson, who identified as non-binary, died in the Gardener Unit on the same site as the Edenfield Centre, in October 2020. The inquest found observation records had been falsified and hospital blood test results had not been communicated back to the 18-year-old's unit, because phone numbers and email addresses on the website were wrong. Rowan's father Marc Thompson, who took part in the independent review into the trust, said: "I get angry. "Those are really basic, lack of detail, mistakes. "I get really angry that all they do is change the personnel. It doesn't matter if you change the people. You have to change the systems." He said staff "knew that they had signed stuff that they hadn't done". "There are other cases within three months where that was a key element to children having serious issues," he said. "Eighteen months later the same thing is happening within the same trust at a unit on the same site. Where is the learning in that?" The trust's chief executive, Jan Ditheridge, said: "We are truly sorry for the events described in the report. "We take the findings seriously and accept the recommendations. "We cannot change the past, but we are committed to a much-improved future - one in which all service users and carers feel safe and supported, and our people are able to do their best work." She said an improvement plan would address the issues raised, with some actions already being completed. "Staff are more supported, leadership and governance is stronger and our culture is getting better," she said, adding the trust had recruited more than 350 nurses in the last six months. The report outlines a series of recommendations for the trust, which include ensuring patient, family and staff voices are heard "at every level" and creating a culture where quality of care is the "utmost priority". Other recommendations include a call to adapt to problems caused by staff shortages, to address the poor state of some building, and for a review into oversight to "prevent tragedies like those seen at Edenfield from reoccurring". 'Immediate action' The trust, which runs the centre, was downgraded from "requires improvement" to "inadequate" by the Care Quality Commission in July. Neil Thwaite who had been the trust's chief executive since 2018 stepped down six months after the BBC's investigation in September 2022. A spokesman for NHS England North West said "immediate action" was taken to improve patient safety at Edenfield after the mistreatment was exposed, including the commissioning of the independent review. "We now owe it to every patient cared for by the trust and the staff working for them and across the NHS, to ensure the review's recommendations are implemented," he added.
|
|