![Sample our Behavioral Sciences journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110801/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Behavioral-Sciences.jpg"})
Abstract
Background: Mental health practice has become an archetypal arena in which the political philosophical tensions between the rights of the individual and the rights of the community are played out. In the UK, controversy surrounds the proposed mental health bill and it brings to the fore classic debates regarding rights in respect of care versus control and the legitimacy of coercion.
Aim: This paper interrogates New Labour's proposed mental health legislation.
Method: Using classic political theoretical debates on rights this paper interrogates the internal consistency and thus the implications of New Labour's proposed mental health legislation for both service users and practitioners.
Results: The paper finds that in their current form not only does legislation threaten the state's previous commitment to a positive conception of liberty for service users, but that proposed legislation will seriously compromise the more basic negative liberty, the right to non interference and autonomy. It is argued that the new mental health bill makes possible enforced treatment without the safeguard that it must be of therapeutic benefit.
Conclusion: Policy must enshrine a clear human rights agenda, not only for the benefit of service users, but also to provide effective guidance and professional protection to those practitioners responsible for care in the community.