The Urgent Need to Review the use of CTOs and Compliance with the UNCRPD Across Australian Jurisdictions

Lisa Brophy; Vrinda Edan; Steve Kisely; Sharon Lawn; Edwina Light; Chris Maylea; Giles Newton-Howes; Christopher James Ryan; Penelope June Weller; Tessa-May Zirnsak

doi:10.19164/ijmhcl.28.1232

Authors

Lisa Brophy La Trobe University, Australia
Vrinda Edan University of Melbourne, Australia
Steve Kisely University of Queensland, Australia
Sharon Lawn Flinders University, Australia
Edwina Light University of Sydney, Australia
Chris Maylea Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia
Giles Newton-Howes University of Otago, New Zealand
Christopher James Ryan University of Sydney, Australia
Penelope June Weller Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia
Tessa-May Zirnsak La Trobe University, Australia

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19164/ijmhcl.28.1232

Abstract

In every Australian jurisdiction, legislation permits mental health service providers and/or mental health tribunals to force people with mental illness to engage in treatment, under Community Treatment Orders (CTOs). Despite considerable efforts made by every Australian state and territory to meet human rights obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) (2008; Maylea & Hirsch, 2017), Australia has rates of CTO usage that are very high by world standards (Light, 2019). Even within Australia, rates of CTO usage vary considerably between and within jurisdictions in spite of the legislation being very similar (Light, 2019; Adult mental health quarterly KPI report, 2019). This occurs in the context of mixed evidence about the efficacy of CTOs and a lack of clear understanding of their purpose (Segal et al., 2017; Kisely et al., 2017). The use of CTOs remains one of the most contentious issues in mental health service delivery. Not only is their efficacy unresolved, they also raise serious ethical and human rights concerns. The current debates, and attempts at reform, must be informed by valid and reliable data. This brief commentary will make the case for a research agenda that addresses the minimal research that has been undertaken to address the variations of CTO use across Australian jurisdictions.

Author Biographies

Lisa Brophy, La Trobe University, Australia

Professor Lisa Brophy, Social Work & Social Policy, La Trobe University, Australia

Vrinda Edan, University of Melbourne, Australia

Vrinda Edan, PhD Candidate & Consumer Academic, Medicine, Dentistry & Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Steve Kisely, University of Queensland, Australia

Professor Steve Kisely, Princess Alexandra Hospital Southside Clinical Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Queensland, Australia

Sharon Lawn, Flinders University, Australia

Professor Sharon Lawn, College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Australia

Edwina Light, University of Sydney, Australia

Dr Edwina Light, School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Australia

Chris Maylea, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia

Dr Chris Maylea, Social Work, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia

Giles Newton-Howes, University of Otago, New Zealand

Associate Professor Giles Newton-Howes, Psychological Medicine, University of Otago, New Zealand

Christopher James Ryan, University of Sydney, Australia

Associate Professor Christopher James Ryan, Psychiatry, University of Sydney, Australia

Penelope June Weller, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia

Professor Penelope June Weller, College of Business and Law, Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology, Australia

Tessa-May Zirnsak, La Trobe University, Australia

Tessa-May Zirnsak, Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University, Australia