Both the Danish Rheumatism Association and the Danish Cystic Fibrosis Association think that patients have a right of access to new and better medicine. The patients affiliated to these two patient groups are more than willing to enroll in clinical trials on new drugs. The Danish Rheumatism Association focuses on good information and security while the Danish Cystic Fibrosis Association has an unrestricted willingness to enroll in clinical trials.
This paper addresses the principles underlying compulsory community treatment (CCT) and discusses the different provisions in Canada's twelve jurisdictions. Comparisons with different models of CCT in other countries are also drawn. CCT is not only intended to reduce relapses it is also a "least restrictive" alternative to in-patient detention. Seven of the twelve Canadian mental health acts allow conditional leave from hospital. Two jurisdictions provide community treatment orders, but require two or three previous in-patient admissions. Criteria for CCT, in most jurisdictions, includes that there is a "likelihood of significant mental or physical deterioration". The requirement for previous hospitalization for CCT in Canada, unlike other countries, precludes CCT for use with first episode patients. Some jurisdictions require consent for CCT. Most jurisdictions explicitly state that the services necessary for the CCT conditions must be available.
In this article, some hopeful outlooks on the evolution of the law are identified and ways of assessing the state and progress of legislation are advanced, drawing from international organizations and some inspiring efforts in other countries. Potential contributors to the evolution of Canadian mental health law are surveyed. The author concludes that there are coherent ways of changing tack, although in this fraught legislative field, no one can make confident predictions about the future.
This article explores several conundrums and attempts to identify ways of redirecting the Canadian ship of state. It first presents an overview of some of the salient features of the array of mainly coercive provincial and territorial mental health statutes. The failure in the main of the Charter to deliver on its early ostensible promises for people with mental health problems is assessed. Next, the author argues that extant legislation remains anchored in the medical model, when other human rights promoting paradigms transforms the statutory agenda.