IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jlawss/v7y2018i4p33-d171918.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Who’s Talking About Us Without Us? A Survivor Research Interjection into an Academic Psychiatry Debate on Compulsory Community Treatment Orders in Ireland

Author

Listed:
  • Liz Brosnan

    (SURE, Health Service and Population Research, Kings College London, London SE5 8AF, UK)

Abstract

This paper presents a user/survivor researcher perspective to the debate among psychiatrists on the suggested introduction of Community Treatment Orders in Ireland. Critical questions are raised about evidence and the construction of psychiatric knowledge. Important questions include: How is this evidence created? What and whose knowledge have not been considered? Some critical issues around coercion, ‘insight’, and attributions of ‘lack of capacity’ are briefly considered. Further legal considerations are then introduced based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disability. The paper concludes with a human rights-based appeal to reject the introduction of coercive community treatment in Ireland.

Suggested Citation

  • Liz Brosnan, 2018. "Who’s Talking About Us Without Us? A Survivor Research Interjection into an Academic Psychiatry Debate on Compulsory Community Treatment Orders in Ireland," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-15, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:33-:d:171918
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/4/33/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2075-471X/7/4/33/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fleur Beaupert, 2018. "Freedom of Opinion and Expression: From the Perspective of Psychosocial Disability and Madness," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(1), pages 1-26, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jlawss:v:7:y:2018:i:4:p:33-:d:171918. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.