[GA—AT VOTE—AGAINST] - Psychiatric Care Act

Status
Not open for further replies.
Simone

Simone

Ursine thingy
-
-
Pronouns
It
TNP Nation
Simone_Republic
Discord
simonenstnp
ga.jpg

Psychiatric Care Act
Category: Civil Rights | Strength: Significant
Proposed by: Jedinsto, Co-authored by: Tinhampton, Morover | Onsite Topic​
The World Assembly,

Aware that, while it has taken great steps to protect the rights of the incarcerated, it has fallen short for those with mental illness, and

Believing that those residing in mental health facilities should not be deprived of the high-quality treatment and care they need,

Enacts the following provisions into law:

  1. For the purposes of this resolution, a "professional" means a mental health professional deemed adequately qualified and educated enough to provide an accurate assessment on one’s mental health.
  2. No Individual may be diagnosed with a mental illness without the thorough assessment of a professional. Nationality, race and ethnicity, gender identity, sexual orientation, political, philosophical and religious beliefs in and of themselves shall not be considered mental illness.
  3. Individuals may not be prosecuted on the basis of having a mental illness; to that effect, the status of having a mental illness shall not be considered a crime.
  4. Individuals with mental illness shall not be denied access to psychiatric care that is appropriate, non-abusive, and non-exploitative.
  5. Individuals may refuse all care and treatment, including but not limited to confinement to a mental health facility, unless both:
    1. The individual has a mental illness, and
    2. A competent, appropriate authority (including a professional) believes that the individual poses a direct threat to themselves or others as a result of the mental illness.
  6. Upon admission, every individual involuntarily held at a mental health facility must be re-evaluated as soon as possible by a professional to determine if they meet both of the Clause 5 criteria.
  7. Member states shall ensure that all patients in mental health facilities - not necessarily including individuals currently serving a punitive sentence after being convicted of a crime - enjoy the following rights:
    1. The right to uncensored transmission and receipt of communication from within mental health facilities (where member states do not choose to censor such communications where allowed under World Assembly law), as long as both:
      1. All recipients (including the patient) agree to be contacted, and
      2. The patient does not possess specific information related to a criminal case which a relevant legal authority has deemed sensitive enough to require censoring of communications to prevent the leak of the information,
    2. The right to receive visits daily and within reason of the facility’s ability to accommodate a certain number of guests (subject to Clause 8 and where member states do not choose to further limit such visitation rights where allowed under World Assembly law), as long as all of the following apply:
      1. The patient and visitor(s) both freely consent to the visit,
      2. The facility is not undergoing some kind of active emergency which would make the visit unsafe,
      3. Neither the visitor(s) nor the patient they are visiting are determined to post an immediate threat to others, and
      4. The patient does not possess specific information related to a criminal case which a relevant legal authority has deemed sensitive enough to require censoring of communications to prevent the leak of the information.
    3. The right to an independent appeal against their being diagnosed with a mental illness or forcibly confined to their mental health facility which may be exercised an indefinite amount of times and from time to time,
    4. The right to be represented during the aforementioned appeals by themselves, their next of kin, or a competent and duly authorized independent advocate,
    5. The right to be released from the mental health facility they are held in as soon as it is safe to do so for themselves and society (with their consent) or otherwise upon winning an appeal against their being forcibly confined to that facility,
    6. The right to rest, play and leisure, and
    7. The right to freedom of movement (except where restraint is necessary to prevent patients from injuring themselves or others, leaving their mental health facility, or entering areas they are not authorized to enter).
  8. Visits made pursuant to Clause 7(b) may be monitored by appropriately equipped facility staff at the request of the patient or their visitor(s).
  9. All former mental health patients shall have the right to receive ongoing, proper psychiatric help upon release from their mental health facility, as long as they continue to request or require it.
  10. When a patient is released from a mental health facility pursuant to Clause 7(c), member states must attempt to assimilate them back into society and take due care to ensure they are not stigmatized.
  11. Should this resolution conflict with another previously passed resolution still in force, the previous and standing resolution shall take precedence.
Co-authored by Morover.
Click to expand...
Note: Only votes from TNP WA nations, NPA personnel, and those on NPA deployments will be counted. If you do not meet these requirements, please add (non-WA) or something of that effect to your vote. If you are on an NPA deployment without being formally registered as an NPA member, name your deployed nation in your vote.
Voting Instructions:
  • Vote For if you want the Delegate to vote For the resolution.
  • Vote Against if you want the Delegate to vote Against the resolution.
  • Vote Abstain if you want the Delegate to abstain from voting on this resolution.
  • Vote Present if you are personally abstaining from this vote.
Detailed opinions with your vote are appreciated and encouraged!
ForAgainstAbstainPresent
01500
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Overview
This proposal seeks to establish protections and rights for individuals residing in mental health facilities. It focuses on ensuring access to non-abusive care, granting the right to refuse treatment under specific conditions, and providing various patient rights during confinement, such as communication, visitation, and the right to appeal their diagnosis or confinement.

Recommendation
While the proposal seeks to improve the treatment of individuals with mental illnesses, it presents several key weaknesses. The definition of a "mental health professional" remains concerningly vague, requiring only that a person be "deemed" qualified to assess mental health. This enables a potential loophole for unqualified individuals to make critical decisions, thereby exposing vulnerable patients to significant risks. Furthermore, the rights granted to patients, particularly concerning the refusal of treatment, are overly broad and poorly defined. This proposal does not adequately clarify what constitutes a "direct threat" to self or others, nor does it specify who determines this. This allows for arbitrary confinement and involuntary treatment without strong oversight or well-defined guidelines,

Moreover, the proposal's exceptions regarding freedom of movement within facilities are alarmingly vague. While the resolution mandates ongoing psychiatric support for former patients, it does not include sufficient safeguards to ensure that post-release care is comprehensive, leaving individuals vulnerable to societal stigma and inadequate reintegration into the community. Additionally, the co-author, Tinhampton, is under MGC sanctions, which raises concerns about the resolution’s credibility and the effectiveness of its safeguards.

For the above reasons, the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs recommends a vote Against the GA proposal at vote, "Psychiatric Care Act".

This IFV Recommendation was written by Brisdon in collaboration with the Ministry of World Assembly Affairs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hard against. My own views on psychiatric care have evolved substantially (for personal reasons that I do not want to discuss) since this resolution was drafted nearly two years ago, and I find that the protection against potential abuse by psychiatrists to be nowhere near enough.
 
Last edited:
Against. The definition of a professional is the whole crux of the resolution in ensuring safe guards but it only requires deeming an individual to be a mental health authority, anyone can deem someone to be something, there would need to be a much clearer definition of who can actually pass judgement on a persons mental health for this to have any weight.
 
(non-WA)
Against. It contradicts itself on many points, and the language they use ("...not necessarily...", "For the purposes of this resolution...", etc...) is very uncertain, holds many flaws, and could easily be manipulated to the readers interpretation.
 
Section 7(g):
The right to freedom of movement (except where restraint is necessary to prevent patients from injuring themselves or others, leaving their mental health facility, or entering areas they are not authorized to enter).
Click to expand...
The hallway outside of the patient's room is an area they are not authorized to enter. That was easy.

Against.
 
"Additionally, the co-author, Tinhampton, is under MGC sanctions, which raises concerns about the resolution’s credibility and the effectiveness of its safeguards."

This is nonsensical. What is the relationship between Tinhampton being a pretty lousy author (in my view anyway) and Tinhampton being under sanctions?
 
Simone:
"Additionally, the co-author, Tinhampton, is under MGC sanctions, which raises concerns about the resolution’s credibility and the effectiveness of its safeguards."

This is nonsensical. What is the relationship between Tinhampton being a pretty lousy author (in my view anyway) and Tinhampton being under sanctions?
Click to expand...
imo that's just a fancy way of saying "we can't trust people who are sanctioned". It can be adjusted in future IFVs and I'll make sure Brisdon is aware. You had opportunity to comment on this before this IFV was published and in the future I'd appreciate if you raise those remarks in private before going public.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top