@article{ref1,
title="Involuntary psychiatric admission: comparative study of mental health legislation in Brazil and in England/Wales",
journal="International journal of law and psychiatry",
year="2019",
author="Brito, Emanuele Seicenti de and Ventura, Carla Aparecida Arena",
volume="64",
number="",
pages="184-197",
abstract="Involuntary admission is a controversial measure that can lead to violation of various human rights. On the opposite, involuntary admissions may contribute for the recovery of those with severe mental disorders who represent a danger to themselves or others. From this perspective, legislation must define and limit the circumstances in which this may occur preventing human rights violations. In this context, this descriptive-comparative study aimed at analyzing the similarities and differences between the mental health' laws related to involuntary psychiatric admission in Brazil and England/Wales. Data were collected through bibliographic and documentary research. The analysis was based on the World Health Organization's Checklist on Mental Heallth Legislation, using the comparative method. <br><br>RESULTS showed that the Brazilian legislation meets 52 (31.32%) of the 166 WHO standards, while legislation in England/Wales meets 90 (54.2%). In addition, the law from England/Wales establishes clearer and detailed procedures for &quot;involuntary admissions&quot; and has &quot;oversight and review mechanisms&quot; more effective than Brazil; the legislation presents a medium compliance of &quot;competence, capacity and protection&quot;, and Brazil does not address these issues in its legislation; Brazilian legislation establishes a larger list of &quot;fundamental rights&quot;, but does not provide &quot;penalties&quot; for the breach of those rights, while England/Wales meets WHO criteria in relation to this issue. The main similarities between Brazil and England/Wales refer to standards that require review: &quot;voluntary patients&quot;, &quot;emergency treatment&quot;, &quot;economic and social rights&quot;, &quot;civil issues&quot; and &quot;protection of vulnerable groups.&quot; Both jurisdictions also have the same level of compliance regarding &quot;clinical and experimental research&quot;, and &quot;special treatments, seclusion and restraint&quot;. This study may bring light for a reflection from competent authorities on the need to have audits for national mental health legislations, carried out by multidisciplinary committees, as recommended by WHO.<br><br>Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.<p /> <p>Language: en</p>",
language="en",
issn="0160-2527",
doi="10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.04.005",
url="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.04.005"
}