human rights and legislation who resource book on mental health

Written submissions have the advantages of time <strong>and</strong> cost, <strong>and</strong> provide an accurate public
record of stakeholder views. Obtaining <strong>and</strong> processing written consultation is relatively less timeconsuming
<strong>and</strong> less expensive than holding oral hearings. If people could be persuaded to
respond, a larger number of individuals <strong>and</strong> groups could be involved. The main disadvantages
of this process are the lack of opportunity for dialogue, <strong>and</strong> the fact that in many countries a
large percentage of the population is illiterate. In written representations, respondents present
their point of view, but other views are not necessarily presented. Thus the possibilities of
building a consensus <strong>and</strong> initiating a change of attitude are substantially reduced. It can also
exclude a large part of the constituency <strong>who</strong>se opinions are particularly important, such as poor
people <strong>and</strong> those from disadvantaged or minority backgrounds, as they may not be able to read
the proposed <strong>legislation</strong> or write a response.
Moreover, when written responses are received, special care has to be taken to ensure that the
more articulate or more “elegantly” written <strong>and</strong> presented responses are not taken more
seriously than the poorly crafted <strong>and</strong> poorly presented ones. Unless those receiving the
submissions are particularly aware of potential prejudices, they may consider a response
generated by a computer <strong>and</strong> printed to be more important than a h<strong>and</strong>written one that is
difficult to decipher <strong>and</strong> written in inarticulate grammar. This could undermine certain goals of
the <strong>legislation</strong>, such as greater equity in services for the poor <strong>and</strong> the empowerment of people
with disability. In addition, written submissions can become an articulation of a particular
problem being faced by a respondent, while the larger policy issues that the consultation
attempts to raise get sidelined. While recognizing that it is time-consuming <strong>and</strong> expensive, the
optimum process with regard to written submissions would be to document <strong>and</strong> circulate the
opinions of all respondents <strong>and</strong> encourage them to engage with opinions opposed to their own.
Written consultation <strong>and</strong> a written response are most important in interactions of the various
constituencies discussed above with governmental authorities. A written opinion helps government
departments in taking positions <strong>and</strong> making commitments. This can significantly aid the process
of implementation of <strong>legislation</strong>. For example, consultation with the ministry of finance will help that
ministry identify the need for additional <strong>resource</strong>s for implementing mental health <strong>legislation</strong>, <strong>and</strong>
formalize the commitment to provide these <strong>resource</strong>s once the law is adopted. Oral consultation
has the advantage of initiating a dialogue between participants. This makes it a more useful
method for forming <strong>and</strong> changing opinions. This form of consultation also involves discussion
<strong>and</strong> debate, that enables a more in-depth exploration of the issues <strong>and</strong> enhances the chances
of achieving consensus. Sometimes stakeholders do not have all the information that helped in
the formulation of certain decisions taken in the drafting process, <strong>and</strong> oral discussions can allow
all relevant information to be shared. Oral consultations also provide an opportunity for the draft
<strong>legislation</strong> to be explained to illiterate people or to people <strong>who</strong> find the language in which the law
has been drafted difficult to underst<strong>and</strong>, <strong>and</strong> to receive feedback from them on it.
The written <strong>and</strong> oral consultation methods have their advantages <strong>and</strong> disadvantages <strong>and</strong> hence
a mixture of both is ideal. The consultation process could commence by seeking opinions in
writing from interested individuals <strong>and</strong> groups. These opinions could be processed <strong>and</strong> those
individuals <strong>and</strong> groups <strong>who</strong>se responses necessitate further discussion <strong>and</strong> deliberation could
be invited for oral consultations. At the same time, to keep all the stakeholders involved in the
consultation process, a summary of the written submission on key issues, as well as the broad
thrust of the oral deliberations, could be shared in the media <strong>and</strong> made available on request.
Interested parties could again be given an opportunity to make submissions at this stage.
In most countries, mental health <strong>legislation</strong> is part of a process of overturning some of the most
deeply held prejudices of society. This can be done not only through the “product” (i.e. the
<strong>legislation</strong> produced), but also through the “process”. The consultation process on draft mental
health <strong>legislation</strong> provides an opportunity for prejudices to be recognized <strong>and</strong> confronted.
100