ABSTRACT
There are two increasingly distinct strands of thought regarding rights to mental health and mental health care in mental health legislation. According to one school of thought, reflected by some (but not all) United Nations (UN) and World Health Organization (WHO) bodies, substitute decision-making and treatment without consent should cease. This is based on a particular, contested reading of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and a hope that the need for such measures can be completely eliminated through improved practices. The other school of thought includes many mental health service-users and providers who acknowledge the need for reform and supported decision-making, but believe treatment without consent will still be needed occasionally, and feel the UN and WHO are increasingly detached from clinical evidence and service provision. There is a need for deeper dialogue, inter-disciplinary research, and enhanced collaboration to protect rights in mental health care.
