Community Treatment Orders
Community Treatment Order (CTO) as a form of mandated outpatient treatment is well established and exists in several jurisdictions in various forms all over the western world. Its concept and practice has generated considerable debate and scrutiny with polarizing views. It presents a case for treatment as a right versus as a choice, and begs the question of whether there can be a balance freedom or coercion for the consumer. In this paper I will provide an overview of CTOs, discuss the issues and weigh in on the existing debate. CTO as a mechanism aims at promoting the consumer good through an inherently coercive process.
In December 2000 the Ontario provincial government introduced Bill 68 (popularly referred …show more content…
In public debates on CTOs, the media has been apt to focus on violence committed by persons with mental illness. This is inherent in “Brian’s Law” as it was an act by a mental person that stimulated political discourse leading to this legislation. The focus on violence perpetuates the association of violence and mental illness in the public mind and leads to further stigmatization as well as stereotypes. The use of CTOs has ethical implications that impact the rights of services users right to choose, when that right is given to doctors to define what they can or cannot do with their life. There is a very important relationship that needs to be formed between a patient and its care team; one that should be based on mutual respect (). The paternalistic nature of CTO may very well impend on this relationship as well as the autonomy of a service user. The psychiatry system perpetuated by the media has yielded to a false pretense that mentally ill persons are perilous or incompetent hence they cannot autonomously have the ability to choose treatment (). There are disparities in the services users involvement while treatment is being planned, and a lack of understanding by some of what is expected of them …show more content…
Reliance on medication to fix it and a legislation to facilitate adherence, coercion seems to be a normative intervention that is crippling to service users. There is one view, which asserts that as a society we have a duty to care and protect individual, the community at large, therefore the necessary measures should be used to get help to those who need it whether they recognized that help is needed or not (). There is another view that believes there is a need to work toward solutions that are more effective and potentially less harmful while upholding individual dignity autonomy (). Despite years of discourse and the evolved understanding on rights, choice and consumer autonomy the core of contention remains the same. Consumers are inherently coerced to agree on treatment that is not decided by them this. There are negatives outcomes that are associated with this, which can include: future treatment avoidance; mistrust of the system and decreased future help-seeking behavior
Community Treatment Order (CTO) as a form of mandated outpatient treatment is well established and exists in several jurisdictions in various forms all over the western world. Its concept and practice has generated considerable debate and scrutiny with polarizing views. It presents a case for treatment as a right versus as a choice, and begs the question of whether there can be a balance freedom or coercion for the consumer. In this paper I will provide an overview of CTOs, discuss the issues and weigh in on the existing debate. CTO as a mechanism aims at promoting the consumer good through an inherently coercive process.
In December 2000 the Ontario provincial government introduced Bill 68 (popularly referred …show more content…
In public debates on CTOs, the media has been apt to focus on violence committed by persons with mental illness. This is inherent in “Brian’s Law” as it was an act by a mental person that stimulated political discourse leading to this legislation. The focus on violence perpetuates the association of violence and mental illness in the public mind and leads to further stigmatization as well as stereotypes. The use of CTOs has ethical implications that impact the rights of services users right to choose, when that right is given to doctors to define what they can or cannot do with their life. There is a very important relationship that needs to be formed between a patient and its care team; one that should be based on mutual respect (). The paternalistic nature of CTO may very well impend on this relationship as well as the autonomy of a service user. The psychiatry system perpetuated by the media has yielded to a false pretense that mentally ill persons are perilous or incompetent hence they cannot autonomously have the ability to choose treatment (). There are disparities in the services users involvement while treatment is being planned, and a lack of understanding by some of what is expected of them …show more content…
Reliance on medication to fix it and a legislation to facilitate adherence, coercion seems to be a normative intervention that is crippling to service users. There is one view, which asserts that as a society we have a duty to care and protect individual, the community at large, therefore the necessary measures should be used to get help to those who need it whether they recognized that help is needed or not (). There is another view that believes there is a need to work toward solutions that are more effective and potentially less harmful while upholding individual dignity autonomy (). Despite years of discourse and the evolved understanding on rights, choice and consumer autonomy the core of contention remains the same. Consumers are inherently coerced to agree on treatment that is not decided by them this. There are negatives outcomes that are associated with this, which can include: future treatment avoidance; mistrust of the system and decreased future help-seeking behavior