Skip to main content
placeholder image

Who is responsible for suicide in human rights era

Conference Paper


Abstract


  • Background: In our day to day clinical mental health practice, we make a number of

    decisions for the patients in their best interest. We are accountable for our actions and

    held responsible for the outcomes. Death of psychiatry patients both by suicide is a

    serious incident that has significant impact on the mental health of the professionals.

    The 21st Century is described as the era of human rights. The Convention on the Rights

    of Persons with Disability (CRPD) has given considerable rights to the mentally ill

    patients. The States like Australia and NZ who are signatories for the CRPD, are bound

    to honor the rights of people with mental disability. Where is the balance between

    duty of care and the rights of the persons with mental disability? Where should the

    accountability and responsibility of mental health professional end, when working in

    human rights oriented services?

    Objectives/ Methods: We bring an international human rights perspective that has

    long lasting influence on national mental health strategy, mental health legislations

    and mental health framework. We give some real life examples of patients completing

    suicides, to illustrate these issues.

    Findings: The international human rights perspective has addressed the issues

    that mentally ill people experienced such as, inequality, discrimination, lack of

    opportunity, and has moved clearly towards social inclusion and citizenship. However,

    this has shifted the human rights balance towards patients autonomy, through

    influencing mental health legislation and guardianship legislations. However, when

    patients commit suicide there are a number of complex investigations, such as root

    Cause Analysis, departmental level and many more ultimately leading to Coroner

    investigation. The process is quite stressful for mental health professional and patients

    family alike and cause symptoms suggestive of PTSD.

    Conclusions: There is a fine balance between duty of care principle that mental health

    professionals follows and human rights framework that the legal professional works

    on. Anything said and done, the best interest of the patients counts. At the end, the

    question remains: Who decides the best interest-lawyers and judges or mental health

    professionals.

UOW Authors


  •   Garg, Vikas
  •   Pai, Nagesh
  •   Malesu, Rammohan Rao (external author)
  •   Garg, Hitta (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Garg, V., Pai, N. B., Malesu, R. & Garg, H. (2012). Who is responsible for suicide in human rights era. RANZCP 2012: New Zealand Conference: Winds of Change - Nga hau karure: Integrated Care (pp. 33-34). New Zealand: The Conference Company.

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/medpapers/504

Start Page


  • 33

End Page


  • 34

Place Of Publication


  • http://www.ranzcp2012.co.nz/programme/

Abstract


  • Background: In our day to day clinical mental health practice, we make a number of

    decisions for the patients in their best interest. We are accountable for our actions and

    held responsible for the outcomes. Death of psychiatry patients both by suicide is a

    serious incident that has significant impact on the mental health of the professionals.

    The 21st Century is described as the era of human rights. The Convention on the Rights

    of Persons with Disability (CRPD) has given considerable rights to the mentally ill

    patients. The States like Australia and NZ who are signatories for the CRPD, are bound

    to honor the rights of people with mental disability. Where is the balance between

    duty of care and the rights of the persons with mental disability? Where should the

    accountability and responsibility of mental health professional end, when working in

    human rights oriented services?

    Objectives/ Methods: We bring an international human rights perspective that has

    long lasting influence on national mental health strategy, mental health legislations

    and mental health framework. We give some real life examples of patients completing

    suicides, to illustrate these issues.

    Findings: The international human rights perspective has addressed the issues

    that mentally ill people experienced such as, inequality, discrimination, lack of

    opportunity, and has moved clearly towards social inclusion and citizenship. However,

    this has shifted the human rights balance towards patients autonomy, through

    influencing mental health legislation and guardianship legislations. However, when

    patients commit suicide there are a number of complex investigations, such as root

    Cause Analysis, departmental level and many more ultimately leading to Coroner

    investigation. The process is quite stressful for mental health professional and patients

    family alike and cause symptoms suggestive of PTSD.

    Conclusions: There is a fine balance between duty of care principle that mental health

    professionals follows and human rights framework that the legal professional works

    on. Anything said and done, the best interest of the patients counts. At the end, the

    question remains: Who decides the best interest-lawyers and judges or mental health

    professionals.

UOW Authors


  •   Garg, Vikas
  •   Pai, Nagesh
  •   Malesu, Rammohan Rao (external author)
  •   Garg, Hitta (external author)

Publication Date


  • 2012

Citation


  • Garg, V., Pai, N. B., Malesu, R. & Garg, H. (2012). Who is responsible for suicide in human rights era. RANZCP 2012: New Zealand Conference: Winds of Change - Nga hau karure: Integrated Care (pp. 33-34). New Zealand: The Conference Company.

Ro Metadata Url


  • http://ro.uow.edu.au/medpapers/504

Start Page


  • 33

End Page


  • 34

Place Of Publication


  • http://www.ranzcp2012.co.nz/programme/