Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights, Liberty Leave a comment on Understanding Treatment Authorities under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)
When a loved one is struggling with severe mental illness, navigating the legal and medical systems can feel completely overwhelming. If you or someone you care about is facing a Treatment Authority in Queensland, you probably have a lot of questions.
A Treatment Authority is a powerful legal mechanism, but it is also highly regulated to ensure patients’ rights are protected. Here is a clear, human-centred guide to what a Treatment Authority means and how the law safeguards those under it.
A Treatment Authority is an order made by an authorised doctor that allows a person with a mental illness to receive treatment without their consent.
Depending on the circumstances, this treatment can happen in two ways:
Inpatient category: The person receives involuntary care while detained at an authorised mental health facility.
Community category: The person lives at home but must comply with a treatment plan in the community.
The strict rule under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld) is that a doctor must opt for the community category unless they believe the person’s needs or safety (or the safety of others) cannot be reasonably met outside a hospital.
An authorised doctor cannot simply impose a Treatment Authority. They must be strictly satisfied that all of the following “treatment criteria” apply:
Mental Illness & Lack of Capacity: The person has a mental illness and currently lacks the capacity to consent to treatment. (Note: Having “capacity” means understanding the nature, benefits, and risks of the treatment, and being able to communicate a choice).
Risk of Serious Harm or Deterioration: Without involuntary treatment, the person is likely to experience imminent serious harm (or cause it to others) or suffer serious physical or mental deterioration.
No Less Restrictive Way: There is absolutely no other, less restrictive way for them to safely receive care.
What counts as a “less restrictive way”?If treatment can be safely managed via an Advance Health Directive, an appointed personal guardian, or a statutory health attorney, a Treatment Authority cannot legally be made.
A Treatment Authority is never meant to be permanent. The system is designed to regularly review the order to ensure it is revoked the moment a patient regains capacity or can be treated more leniently.
Orders are reviewed and can be revoked through several channels:
Doctor Reviews: If the order was made by a general doctor, an authorised psychiatrist must review and confirm or revoke it (usually within 3 days). Regular reassessments must occur at least every 3 months.
The Mental Health Review Tribunal (MHRT): The MHRT is an independent body that automatically reviews the authority within the first 28 days, again at 6 months, 12 months, and then annually. You, a loved one, or an “interested person” can also apply for a review at any time.
Appeals: If you disagree with an MHRT decision, an appeal can be lodged with the Mental Health Court.
The Mental Health Act 2016 emphasizes that involuntary treatment should always be a last resort, aiming to safeguard rights and promote recovery. However, ensuring that a patient’s views, wishes, and legal rights are actually being heard can be incredibly stressful when you are in the thick of a medical crisis.
If you or a family member are dealing with a Treatment Authority or an upcoming Mental Health Review Tribunal hearing, having an experienced, compassionate legal ally can make all the difference. We understand how sensitive these situations are, and we are here to help you advocate for the dignity and rights your loved one deserves.
Contact our friendly, experienced team today to discuss how we can support you through this process.
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights 1 Comment on Labor’s misinformation bill is about controlling public discourse
Ever noticed how terms like ‘misinformation’ and ‘misinformation’ are used to dismiss dissent?
Claire Lehmann, founding editor of Quillette, outlines how the term ‘misinformation’ is used to label contrary points of view, and provides the following examples:
Continue reading “Labor’s misinformation bill is about controlling public discourse”
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights, Liberty 4 Comments on The federal government’s social media big brother bill
“It is not difficult to deprive the great majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced….Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken pubic support….When the doubt or fear expressed concerns not the success of a particular enterprise but of the whole social plan, it must be treated even more as sabotage.”
― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
“The principle that the end justifies the means is in individualist ethics regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule.”
― Friedrich Hayek
“It is one of the saddest spectacles of our time to see a great democratic movement support a policy which must lead to the destruction of democracy and which meanwhile can benefit only a minority of the masses who support it. Yet it is this support from the Left of the tendencies toward monopoly which make them so irresistible and the prospects of the future so dark.”
― Friedrich August von Hayek, The Road to Serfdom
“Our faith in freedom does not rest on the foreseeable results in particular circumstances but on the belief that it will, on balance, release more forces for the good than for the bad.”
― Friedrich A. Hayek
The Communications Legislation Amendment (Combatting Misinformation and Disinformation) Bill 2023 (“The Bill“) if passed will allow the government to monitor social media content it disapproves of and to conscript social media companies to do their dirty work of curtailing such content through the Australian Communications and Media Authority (“ACMA”).
As such, the Bill represents a dangerous threat to freedom of online discourse.
Continue reading “The federal government’s social media big brother bill”
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights 2 Comments on Further revelations of Public Trustee of Queensland’s gouging of estates
“The nine most terrifying words in the English language are: I’m from the Government, and I’m here to help.”
The Public Trustee of Queensland is a public body charged with managing the finances of some of the most vulnerable members of the community, including those lacking capacity and prisoners.
Continue reading “Further revelations of Public Trustee of Queensland’s gouging of estates”
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights 2 Comments on Treatment Authorities under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)
A treatment authority is an order made by an authorised doctor for the treatment of a person with a mental illness without that person’s consent. A treatment authority order can authorise the involuntary detention of the person receiving treatment at a mental health facility, or community-based treatment.
Continue reading “Treatment Authorities under the Mental Health Act 2016 (Qld)”
Author adminPosted on Categories Criminal law, Human rights 2 Comments on Why you shouldn’t talk to the police
Outside of the legal realm, telling your side of the story at the earliest opportunity may be often a good idea. But in legal matters, things work very differently. In many situations, saying less is better than saying more, and saying nothing at all is better than saying anything.
Continue reading “Why you shouldn’t talk to the police”
Author adminPosted on Categories Criminal law, Human rights 2 Comments on District Court permanently stays Volkers prosecution The District Court has decided to not allow charges of indecent dealing to proceed due to the long history and unreasonable delays in the matter.
On 26 March 2002, Scott Volkers was arrested in relation to alleged indecently dealing of a 12 year old female swimmer in 1987.
On 16 June 2002, Volkers was charged with indecently dealing of a 13 year old female swimmer in 1984 and 1985.
On 25 July 2002, he was committed to stand trial on seven counts of indecent dealing involving the two complainants. Continue reading “District Court permanently stays Volkers prosecution”
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights, Liberty Leave a comment on The Australian Federal Police’s raids on press freedom
On 4 June 2019, the Australian Federal Police raided the home of News Corp Australia journalist Annika Smethurst after she revealed in April last year that the Defence and Home Affairs departments had been discussing monitoring Australian citizens for the first time.
The following day, the Australian Federal Police raided the Australian Broadcasting Corporation’s Sydney offices as well after a number of stories known as the Afghan Files revealed allegations of unlawful killings and misconduct by Australian special forces in Afghanistan and were based on hundreds of pages of secret Defence documents leaked to the ABC. Continue reading “The Australian Federal Police’s raids on press freedom”
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights, Industrial relations, Liberty, litigation, Unfair dismissal 2 Comments on Professor Peter Ridd wins dismissal case against James Cook University
Last year, Professor Peter Ridd was sacked by James Cook University after speaking out on issues relating to climate change research.
He took James Cook University to the Federal Circuit Court, arguing his termination of employment was unlawful.
Today, Ridd has won his case, with the Court awarding judgment in his favour:
“Handing down his decision today, judge Salvatore Vasta said that the 17 findings used by the university to justify the sacking were unlawful.
“The Court rules that the 17 findings made by the University, the two speech directions, the five confidentiality directions, the no satire direction, the censure and the final censure given by the University and the termination of employment of Professor Ridd by the University were all unlawful,” Judge Vasta said.
A penalty hearing will be set for a later date.
At a hearing last month, Professor Ridd’s barrister Stuart Wood argued his client was entitled to criticise his colleagues and the university’s perceived lack of quality assurance processes.”
This is a win for free speech and academic freedom.
Author adminPosted on Categories Human rights, Industrial relations, Liberty, Unfair dismissal 1 Comment on JCU in Court for adverse actions against academic freedom
Climate blogger Jennifer Marohasy provides an interesting report on Dr Peter Ridd’s case against James Cook University in the Federal Circuit Court. Ridd’s employment as an academic of the university was terminated in May due to him speaking out and defying a gag order imposed by the university.
Continue reading “JCU in Court for adverse actions against academic freedom”
