Coercion and human rights: A European perspective

References

• Bartlett P., Lewis O., Thorold O. Mental dsability and the European convention on human rights. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden 2006
   Google Scholar
• Bartlett P., Sandland R. Mental health law: Policy and practice, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, Oxford 2007
   Google Scholar
• Bayles M. Procedural justice: Allocating to individuals. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht 1990
   Google Scholar
• Bean P. Mental disorder and legal control. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 1986
   Google Scholar
• Dawson J., Szmukler G. The fusion of mental health and incapacity legislation. British Journal of Psychiatry 2006; 188: 504–509
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Department of Constitutional Affairs. Mental Capacity Act 2005 Code of Practice. TSO, London 2007
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Report of the Expert Committee, Review of the Mental Health Act 1983. Department of Health, London 1999
   Google Scholar
• Department of Health. Draft Addendum to the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice. Department of Health, London 2007
   Google Scholar
• Eastman N., Peay J. Law without enforcement. Hart Publishing, Oxford 1999
   Google Scholar
• Galligan D. Due process and fair procedures. Clarendon Press, Oxford 1996
   Google Scholar
• Hiday V., Swartz M., Swanson J., Wagner H. Patient perception of coercion in mental hospital admission. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1997; 20: 227–241
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoyer G., Kjellin L., Engberg M., Kaltiala-Heino R., Nilstun T., Sigurjonsdottir M., Syse A. Paternalism and autonomy: A presentation of a Nordic study on the use of coercion in the mental health care system. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2002; 25: 93–108
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind E., Tyler T. The social psychology of procedural justice. Plenum, New York 1988
   Google Scholar
• Lind E., Kanfer R., Early P. Voice, control and procedural justice: Instrumental and non-instrumental concerns in fairness judgements. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1990; 59: 952–959
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna B., Simpson A., Coverdale J., Laidlaw T. An analysis of procedural justice during psychiatric hospital admission. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2001; 24: 573–581
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKenna B., Simpson A., Coverdale J. Patients' perception of coercion on admission to forensic psychiatric hospital: A comparison study. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2003; 26: 355–372
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monahan J., Hoge S., Lidz C., Roth L., Bennett N., Gardner W., Mulvey E. Coercion and commitment: Understanding involuntary hospital admission. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1995; 18: 249–263
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen H. Perceived coercion among committed, detained and voluntary patients. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 1999; 22: 167–175
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Poulsen H. The prevalence of extralegal deprivation of liberty in a psychiatric hospital population. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2002; 25: 29–36
   Google Scholar
• Richardson G. Law, process and custody: Prisoners and patients. Weidenfeld and Nicolson, London 1994
   Google Scholar
• Richardson G. Autonomy, guardianship and mental disorder: One problem, two solutions. Modern Law Review 2002; 65: 702–723
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Richardson G. The European Convention and Mental Health Law in England and Wales: Moving beyond process. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2005; 28: 127–139
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Richardson G. Balancing autonomy and risk: A failure of nerve in England and Wales. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 2007; 30: 71–80
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Szmukler G., Holloway F. Mental health law is now a harmful anachronism. Psychiatric Bulletin 1998; 22: 662–665
   Google Scholar
• Zigmond A., Holland A. Unethical mental health law: History repeats itself. Journal of Mental Health Law 2000; 3: 49–56
   Google Scholar