Minimising Coerciveness in Coercion: A Case Study of Social Work Powers under the Victorian Mental Health Act

ABSTRACT

The balance between care and control in mental health social work is one of constant tension. In the State of Victoria, Australia, the Mental Health Act 2014 gives coercive powers to social workers employed by public mental health services. These include the power to decide if a person needs to be assessed by a psychiatrist, to “take” a person using bodily restraint, to enter premises, and to search and seize a person’s belongings. This paper applies a doctrinal analysis to examine the law, then argues that the use of these powers by social workers, where safe, may be less restrictive than when they are used by police or paramedics. The exercise of these powers may be less traumatic and stigmatising to the people who are subject to them, and social workers may be both legally and ethically obligated to use coercion when appropriate.

IMPLICATIONS

• More social work literature on the coercive powers under mental health legislation is needed as well as more guidance on using these powers for social workers in practice.

• In some circumstances, these coercive powers may be better exercised by social workers than by other professionals.

• Social workers should carefully consider their legal and ethical obligations to use these powers in some circumstances.

精神健康领域的社会工作，如何在看护与控制之间把握平衡，是一个长久的矛盾。澳大利亚维多利亚州的2014精神健康法案赋予了社会工作者在公共精神健康服务机构中使用强制的权力。这权力包括认定一个人是否需要心理咨询师为其做评估、是否要让一个人身体受约束、是否进入相关场所、是否要搜查并收缴一个人的随身物品。本文对该法律做了学理分析，指出社会工作者使用这样的权力，只要安全，其约束性会小于警察或医务工作者。心理创伤以及对病人的污名程度也相对低。因此社会工作者在法律上和伦理上都应该在适当的情况下使用强制力。

KEYWORDS:

• Involuntary Clients
• Mental Health
• Victorian Mental Health Act
• Coercive Practice
• Statutory Social Work
• Social Work Powers

Acknowledgement

With thanks to Associate Professor Penelope Weller, for reading earlier drafts of this work.

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.