Dr Sam Boyle2, Dr Fiona Jager3
1Queensland University Of Technology, Brisbane, Australia, 2Australian Centre for Health Law Research, Brisbane, Australia, 3St Lawrence College, Brockville, Canada
Biography:
Dr Sam Boyle is a Senior Lecturer in the School of Law at Queensland University of Technology (QUT), where he teaches and researches in medical law and mental health law. His research focuses on legal capacity, involuntary treatment for mental illness, and consent for medical treatment. He spent 2024 as a visiting professor at the University of Ottawa to conduct a study on community treatment orders in Ontario. Dr Boyle’s PhD examined capacity to refuse medical treatment in cases of anorexia nervosa. He has previously lectured at the University of Queensland and the University of Kent.
Regulation of compulsory treatment for mental illness is often a site of tension between legal and healthcare perspectives. Previous research has shown that while legal and medical stakeholders often have shared values, these values may manifest in opposing views about law reform. Also, policymakers sometimes struggle to incorporate the views of service users in reform processes.
This presentation reports on the findings of an international, interdisciplinary study conducted in Ontario, Canada, on potential reforms to the regime governing non-forensic compulsory treatment for mental illness. We interviewed 64 stakeholders—including service users, clinicians, lawyers, family members, and Tribunal members— to explore their views on problems in the system. We conducted mixed focus groups to discuss possible solutions, observed Tribunal hearings, and analysed published data. From this, we developed a series of policy recommendations that we argue are likely to attract broad support across stakeholder groups. This talk will outline areas of consensus as well as points of ongoing disagreement.
Although Canadian and Australian law on compulsory treatment differ in important respects, the structural similarities between the two systems mean the findings have direct relevance for Australian mental health lawyers, clinicians, and policymakers seeking to reflect on and improve current regimes.