12.
Initial assessment for involuntary
detention
The current legislation/ situation
Under section 19 of the Act, a medical practitioner or AP who is of the opinion that a person is a mentally ill
person or a mentally disordered person can complete a Schedule 1 certificate allowing the person to be
taken to, and initially detained in a DMHF for assessment.
APs are experienced, and specially trained and appointed health practitioners who may be nurses,
psychologists or social workers.
At present, only medical practitioners (including AMOs and psychiatrists) in declared mental health facilities
can complete the certificate (Form 1) which allows for a person’s continued detention and involuntary
treatment at a DMHF (pending a mental health inquiry) (s27). As a further safeguard, where the first Form 1
examiner proposes to continue detaining the person, they must then be examined by at least one, and in
some cases two, additional medical practitioners, both of whom must be psychiatrists if the first assessor
was not a psychiatrist.
Access to medical practitioners with sufficient working knowledge of the Act and experience with mental
health may be problematic in some DMHF emergency departments that undertake Form 1 assessments,
particularly in regional areas. It was proposed that giving APs the authority to complete an examination as
part of a Form 1 certificate could help to address this resourcing issue.
http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/mhdao/Documents/Review-of-the-Mental-Health-Act-2007.pdf
http://www.hnehealth.nsw.gov.au/__d...2/NG9_Understanding_Involuntary_Treatment.pdf
I've read repeatedly in msm that Monis was considered mentally unstable, a menace to society, violent, delusional etc. Why wasn't he detained and assessed by doctors, given treatment? What does a person have to do to be involuntarily admitted? He wasn't some private secret of a family who has suddenly gone berserk, he was well-known throughout his own community, the govt. and the media. Is there some kind of stigma reporting a person like Monis because of his beliefs? Will it be considered harassment, fueled by bigotry, not about protecting society? Or, is there worse than him out there and he was considered a low risk?
I'm scratching my head, I don't understand.