Taylor J1, Sullivan D2
1Victorian Bar, 2Victorian Institute of Forensic Mental Health (Forensicare)
Biography:
Jessie Taylor BA(Hons) LLB(Hons) MSc(HA) is a Victorian Barrister who practices in public law with a particular focus on human rights, health and disability.
She is a member of the Australian and New Zealand Association of Psychiatry, Psychology and the Law (ANZAPPL) and the Australian Institute of Administrative Law (AIAL).
Jessie is a Director of Donkey Wheel, and a former President of the Victorian Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty Victoria) (2016-2019). She is co-creator of the documentary Between the Devil and the Deep Blue Sea. She speaks Hazaragi and French.
In recent years, momentum has grown to embed human rights meaningfully in psychiatric practice. In Victoria, the evolution of mental health legislation over the last 60 years illustrates the shift, and throws into stark relief the tension between clinical best practice and the centrality of personal autonomy to assessment, treatment and recovery.
The 2022 Mental Health and Wellbeing Bill demonstrates these shifts in mental health care and the increasing priority given to patient autonomy.
This paper will examine the forces exerted on mental health legislation in Victoria since the 1959 Act, including growing consumer advocacy movements, the advent of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, and the Charter of Human Rights; as well as Economic pressures and service developments which have impacted on institutional, hospital-based and long term care. It will examine parallels between the recommendations of the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System and the UK’s Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 (including reduction of compulsory treatment and restrictive interventions, a push toward supporting people to make decisions about their own treatment, and an emphasis on intersectionality and diversity of experience).
Finally, this paper will consider how (or whether?) clinicians and service providers can reconcile the competing considerations they are asked to weigh: clinical best practice, community expectations of mental health service provision, and the personal autonomy and “dignity of risk” of people using mental health services.