Lacking Insight - Community Law

Lacking Insight• Key participants in the hearing process - treatingteams and advocates/legal representatives -should be required to read the recommendationsand consumer and stakeholder view sections ofthis report.Further researchStakeholders identified production of Statements ofReasons as an area of concern. Consumers did notprovide significant feedback on this issue – probablylargely because most did not procure a Statement ofReasons. Further research should be conducted toascertain the value of Statements of Reasons in theirpresent form, by obtaining the views of consumerswho have received Statements of Reasons, byanalysing an appropriate sample of Statements, andby investigating in greater depth the experience ofadvocates who have requested a significant numberof statements.A number of consumers, alleged to be noncompliant,told researchers that they objected notto treatment, but to the way it is delivered, in astigmatising and punitive way. Consumers want tohave access to alternative therapies and consumerrunservices. Further research should be conductedinto these models of service delivery in the context ofchoice of treatment options.Advance directives, documents that consumerscan create while they are well (that is they possess‘capacity’ in legal terms), which stipulate all that theywould like done for them in the event they becomeunwell later on, and which are in a fledgling state ofdevelopment in Victoria, will challenge the Board torespect a person’s wishes and interests. Upcomingresearch will address the role the Board has in givingeffect to Advance Directives.Is the existing Victorian Board structure the bestmodel of review? Further national research is atpresent being conducted – an Australian ResearchCouncil funded comparative study of Mental HealthTribunals in NSW, Victoria and ACT. However,research needs to be conducted to assess theefficiencies of the present Victorian review model, tocompare the costs and benefits of single memberboards and other review models.Consumers identified the need for further firstperson experience research as a follow up to thisproject in 3 years time, to review the progressof recommendations and evaluate the Board inthe context of the Mental Health Act review, theimplementation of the Department of HumanServices (“DHS”) plan Because mental health mattersand the application of the Charter.As discussed later in the report, further researchefforts would be worthwhile to:Speak with Koori consumers with experience of theBoard to obtain their views on the review processand explore ways to ensure they have meaningfulparticipation; andSpeak with more consumers from culturally andlinguistically diverse backgrounds to ascertain theneeds o f the majority who were unable to participatein this research.MethodologyWho is a ‘consumer’?An explanation of terminologyin the report.The word ‘consumer’ is used throughout the report.This is the terminology chosen by the AdvisoryGroup. For explanation see Footnote 1, Page 3.18