Alberta Mental Health Act Alberta Mental Health Amendment

Alberta Mental Health Act Alberta Mental Health Amendment Act

Outline Introduction to mental health Mental Health Act Mental Health Amendment Act – Bill 31 Benefits of Community Treatment Orders (CTO’s) Criticisms of CTO’s Implications http: //www. youtube. com/watch? v=d. Fd. Yq. Ruq. KDM

Alberta Mental Health Act • Provincial Statute/Law • 1 of 3 Acts that take away people’s liberty to make their own decisions (Criminal Act is another) • Very powerful! • Allows for involuntary detention & treatment of persons w/mental illness under certain conditions: – Mental disorder – Danger to self or others – No alternative

MHA cont’d Acts contain regulations (HOW the Act will be carried out). In the MHA the following regulations are included: Apprehension S 10 (how someone gets to facility) Examination S 5 (what Doc & facility can do) Admission Certificates S 2 (that allow ppl to be detained in facility) Renewal Certificates S 8 Treatment Decisions Ss 26 -29 Review Panels Ss 34 -41 Judicial Review S 43

MHA – Patient Rights • The following patient rights are listed within the Act: – Information – Confidentiality – Communications – Visitors – Legal representation – Refusal of treatment – Appeal – Have an advocate

MHA Amendment Act - 2007 Not law yet. First passed April 17, May 10, and again on December 7, 2007. Not yet proclaimed. Significant Changes - New Act will lower the threshold for certification, and for CTO’s - Detainment not only in facilities but in community as well (CTO) - CTO can be revoked and you can be ordered back as an inpatient - Role of other health care professionals expanded - May have large impact on ER’s - Good middle step which is following legislation of other provinces

Community Treatment Orders • Patient must still suffer from a mental disorder • Must still meet list of criteria as outlined in MHA S 9. 1(1)(b) • Treatment must exist in community AND will be provided • Physicians must believe there will be compliance by pt • Expiration: – Expires 6 mths after issued – No restriction on amt of renewals – If person breaches order, physician signs an instant order for police to apprehend the person to a facility and be assessed for certification

The main debate: Community risk/safety/control vs. Individual rights

“While opponents of community committal make the case that it denies people the basic right to choose or refuse treatment, those who favour this strategy counter that we are not enhancing people's rights by allowing them to live without dignity or decent quality of life. Without regular treatment, people are more apt to be admitted and readmitted to hospital, a place where involuntary patients have few rights indeed. In fact, by helping to see that they receive treatment outside the hospital, we are actually helping to safeguard people's right to a fulfilling life in the community. ” (CMHA, 1998).

“For both consumers and others, it often comes down to a question of human rights and civil liberties, ” (CMHA, 1998).

Community Treatment Orders Benefits Consistent treatment It does not enhance rights to allow people to live without dignity or decent quality of life Clients have very few rights if involuntarily hospitalized; community committal is less restrictive is a preferred last resort alternative to involuntary hospitalization There is less intrusion on civil liberties than in hospital and savings on costs can be transferred to community services Some mental illnesses affect ability to reason New medications are effective if used consistently Professional role is more effective if patients comply with treatment

What is a Community Treatment Order? A Community Treatment Order (CTO), “. . . means an order requiring treatment for mental illness of a person who is at large in the community but does not apply to a person in prison or a patient in an approved mental health service, ” (Brophy & Ring, 2004, pp. 159). - Depending on the individual, different measures will be taken - The intended purpose of CTO’s is. . .

Community Treatment Orders Criticisms ‘Police Like’ Role vs. Therapeutic Role CTO’s effectiveness is questionable Further Oppressive (State power over human rights) Response to and filling the gap for lack of community resources Involuntary and enforced on non-compliant patients Informed Choices and Human Rights Negative impacts of coercion Further disempowering

Implications to Practice and Mental Healthcare

System Re-structuring • Intended Consequence: Economic Savings - Proponents of CTO’s cite many positive consequences including freeing up hospital beds and economic savings to an overtaxed healthcare system - It has been noted in the literature, however, that consumers struggle to obtain adequate community services voluntarily, let alone if individuals are mandated. - How can we achieve adequate service provision in the community to support CTO’s in the current economic and political climate? - Will hospital services remain an adequate alternative should patients need that level of care?

Intended Consequence: Consumer Stabilisation & Consistency of Care - As opposed to revolving door hospitalizations and lack of cohesive and consistent care after discharge Challenges - Structure of services not currently existing in diversity or number - Inequity of service provision geographically in province

Possible Unintended Consequences Social Implications Consumer loss of personal autonomy and control over treatment Coercion a) Causes anxiety for practitioners who over-see CTO’s b) Strongly opposed by many consumer groups as in direct conflict with human rights c) Also opposed by family and allies for the same reasons Legalities CTO’s could criminalize mental health by bringing consumers into contact with police and making treatment a legal issue

Substantial Deterioration or Serious Impairment Intended Consequence: to allow health professionals to treat a person who is seriously mentally ill that are not a danger to themselves or others Possible Unintended Consequences: Medical : Assessment tools need to be created or implemented in health setting as applies to Bill 31 Legal: term ‘serious’, ‘substantial’ and ‘deterioration’ are ambiguous and may become a constitutional issue because they are open to interpretation

Community Treatment Orders Intended Consequence: to improve quality of life for individuals through treatment Possible Unintended Consequences: Not a recovery model thus individuals are in a continuous cycle of being ‘the disabled’ Treatment not defined Social: flexibility also can create opportunities for abuses of power Legal: ambiguity may lead to constitutional issues

Cultural Implications Case of Ifufunyane vs. Psychosis Possible Unintended Consequences: Social: may close down conversations about the underlying assumptions of health/mental health

Evaluation Proposed changes to Mental Health Act are substantial and merit planned review for effectiveness - Changes will be implemented this September, with CTO being implemented in January - While most Mental Health Acts set out a timeline for evaluation, Bill 31 has no such plan for evaluation - The last two phases of the stages of policy making could hindered as implementation of Bill 31 could be hindered by lack of service structure and evaluation of the bill has not been specified.

Conclusions Questions & Comments

References Alberta Mental Health Patient Advocate. (2008). Amendments to the Mental Health Act. Retrieved from http: //www. mhpa. ab. ca Al-Issa, I. (Ed. ) (1996). Handbook of culture and mental illness: An international perspective. Madison: International Universities Press, Inc. Brophy, L. & Ring, D. (2004). The efficacy of involuntary treatment in the community: Consumer and service provider perspectives. Social Work in Mental Health, 2 (2 -3), 157 -174. Canadian Mental Health Association. Alberta Division: Advocacy. Retrieved from http: //www. cmha. ab. ca/bins/site_page 2. asp? cid=284 -285 -1247&lang=1 Canadian Mental Health Association. Alberta Division: Community Committal. Retrieved from http: //www. cmha. ab. ca/bins/content_page. asp? cid=5 -33 -179&lang=1 Dawson, J. , Romans, S. , Gibbs, A. & Ratter, N. (2003). Ambivalence about community treatment orders. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 26 (3), 243 -255. Dreezer & Dreezer Inc. (2005). Report on the legislated review of community treatment orders, required under section 33. 9 of the mental health act for Ontario ministry of health and long term care. Retreived on September 1 st, 2009, from http: //www. ssaedmonton. com/PDF%20 files/Bay_CTO_Review. pdf. Mental Health Act. c. M-13 R. S. A. (2000). Mental Health Admendement Act. M-13. (2007). Niehaus, D. J. H. , & Stein, D, J, & Koen, L, &, Lochner, C, & Muller, J. E. , Mbanga, N. I. , et al (2006). Clinical case discussion: a case of ifufunyane: a Xhosa culture-bound syndrome. Journal or Psychiatric Practice, 11(6), 411 -413. Premier’s Council on the Status of Person’s with Disabilities (2008, August). Changes on the way for the mental health act. Disability in Focus. Retrieved on September, 2 nd, 2009, from http: //www. seniors. alberta. ca/Premiers. Council/DIFnewsletter. pdf Provincial Health Ethics Network. (2007). Review of bill 31: Mental health amendment act 2007 submitted to the standing committee on community services. Retrieved September 1, 2009, from http: //www. phen. ab. ca/pcons/docs/MHAct. Summary. Final. pdf Psychiatric Patient Advocate Office, Government of Ontario. Retrieved from http: //www. ppao. gov. on. ca/inf-com. html Schizophrenia Society of Alberta. (2007). Alberta Bill 31 Mental Health Amendment Act 2007 Comparative Analysis. Retrieved September 1 from http: //www. ssa-edmonton. com/PDF%20 files/BILL 31 -comments. pdf Yip, S. (2003). Social workers’ and physicians’ experiences with review panels in British Columbia. Social Work in Mental Health, 2 (1), 71 -89.