Abstract
<p>This paper will explore the practice of withholding a person’s access to the outdoors while under involuntary hospitalization, or civil commitment, in the province of Ontario, Canada. Following a question from the author’s clinical practice, the paper asks: Are we denying mental health patients a right that is protected for prisoners?<br />An overview of the structure of the Canadian legal system and the role of international human rights law in local legislation is offered to situate lack of outdoor access under civil commitment in a broad legal context. The intention of legal and ethical positions described in human rights and mental health law will be considered in light of how these support or negate current practices in health care. Key issues of civil commitment will be defined. Law and policy governing outdoor access in other institutions such as prisons and detention centers will be outlined as a point of comparison.</p><p><br />The purpose of this paper is to serve as a guide to thinking through the issue of institutional confinement without access to the outdoors when a person’s independent freedom of movement is compromised, legally or otherwise. Should there be future interest in challenging this practice, this paper will be useful as a primer for how to approach legislation and institutional policy.</p><p><br />Key words: Canadian legal system; Mental Health Act (1990); Ontario; Deprivation of liberty; Ultra vires; Human rights; Psychiatric nursing; Hospital design; Outdoor spaces; Fresh air; Patient rights; Civil commitment</p>
Highlights
From behind panes of plexiglas, a man knocks at the sliding window
To fully explore the strangeness of involuntary confinement without access to the outdoors in Ontario hospitals, this paper presents a close study of Canadian mental health law and criminal law, and a comparison of local legislation to international human rights law
The 2016 Annual Report of the Office of the Auditor General of Ontario stated: We found that in the last five years approximately one in ten beds in specialty psychiatric hospitals was occupied by someone who did not need hospital care but could not be discharged due to the lack of available beds in supportive housing or at long-term care homes
Summary
From behind panes of plexiglas, a man knocks at the sliding window. I open it. This is the case for both voluntary and involuntary admissions because inpatient mental health units are locked and are permitted only in hospitals designated by the Ministry of Health and Long-Term Care (MHOLTC) as Schedule 1 facilities (institutions where patients may be restrained if necessary according to the MHA.) There are 70 Schedule 1 facilities in Ontario, including forensic institutions for the treatment of those found Not Criminally Responsible for a crime due to a mental. This paper asks if everyone might deserve a little more breathing room
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
