An analysis of Nepal’s Draft Mental Health Acts 2006–2017: competing values and power

Author:

Stephens Jane1ORCID,Simkhada Padam2,van Teijlingen Edwin3,Porter John4,Eaton Julian4

Affiliation:

1. Green Tara Trust , Saint Stephen’s Road, London E3 5JQ, United Kingdom

2. University of Huddersfield , Queensgate, Huddersfield HD1 3DH, United Kingdom

3. Bournemouth University , Fern Barrow, Poole BH12 5BB, United Kingdom

4. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine , Keppel Street, London WC1E 7HT, United Kingdom

Abstract

Abstract This qualitative study maps the process of drafting and consulting on Nepal’s mental health legislation from 2006 to 2017. A total of 14 people were interviewed and interviews were analysed thematically. These themes were subsequently interpreted in light of Shiffman and Smith’s policy analysis framework, as the process was found to be at the agenda-setting stage. Two groups of actors were identified with different views on appropriate policy content and how the policy process should be conducted. The first group included psychiatrists who initiated and controlled the drafting process and who did not consider people with psychosocial disabilities to be equal partners. The psychiatrists viewed forced detention and treatment as upholding people’s right to health and lobbied the Ministry of Health and Population (MoHP) to pass the draft acts to parliament. The second included the rights-based civil society actors and lawyers who saw the right to equality before the law as of utmost priority, opposed forced detention and treatment, and actively blocked the draft acts at the MoHP. There is no clear legal definition of mental health and illness in Nepal, legal and mental capacity are not differentiated, and people with mental and behavioural conditions are assumed to lack capacity. The analysis indicates that there were few favourable conditions to support the progression of this policy into law. It is unclear whether the drafters or blockers will prevail in the future, but we predict that professionals will continue to have more input into content than service users due to national policy dynamics.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Reference33 articles.

1. Declaring ultra-virus to the statutory provisions contradicting with the constitution and issue write of manadmus and any other appropriate order;Balaram,2008

2. Independent living and the medical model of disability;Brisenden;Disability, Handicap and Society,1986

3. Kingdon’s multiple streams approach: what is the empirical impact of this universal theory?;Cairney;Policy Studies Journal,2016

4. Human rights violations of people with mental and psychosocial disabilities: an unresolved global crisis;Drew;The Lancet (British Edition),2011

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3