Surveying the Geneva impasse: Coercive care and human rights Wayne Martin, Sándor Gurbai International Journal of Law and Psychiatry Volume 64, May–June 2019, Pages 117-128 Researchers from Workstream 4, focusing on ‘insight’, publish a new paper in the International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, looking at the differences between ‘coercive’ and ‘non-consensual’ care interventions under the United
-
Surveying the Geneva impasse: Coercive care and human rights
-
Objectivity in science and law: A shared rescue strategy
A new study by Matthew Burch (WS4), and Katherine Furman is published in International Journal of Law and Psychiatry (Vol 64, May-June 2019). Objectivity in science and law: A shared rescue strategy “The ideal of objectivity is in crisis in science and the law, and yet it continues to do important work in both practices. This
-
Open Access Gateway Misevaluating the Future: Affective Disorder and Decision-Making Capacity for Treatment – A Temporal Understanding
A new study from MHJ researchers using in-depth interviews with patients/service users experiencing mood disorder. The study aims to understand how the future is experienced from the standpoint of severe depression and mania and how this impacts on decision-making capacity for treatment. It proposes that self -determination can be effected – both in severe depression
-
Is Involuntary Placement and Non-Consensual Treatment Ever Compliant with UN Human Rights Standards?
A Survey of UN Reports (2006-2017) Gurbai, S., Martin, W. In recent years, the issues of involuntary placement and involuntary treatment for mental health conditions have been addressed on a number of different occasions within the UN system. There is no unified UN position on the question of whether involuntary placement and treatment can be lawful under
