Search

Despite the efforts of the World Health Organization to internationally standardize strategies for mental-health care delivery, the rules and regulations for involuntary admission and treatment of patients with mental disorder still differ markedly across countries. This review was undertaken to describe the regulations and mental-health laws from diverse countries and districts of Europe (UK, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Ireland, and Norway), the Americas (Canada, USA, and Brazil), Australasia (Australia and New Zealand), and Asia (Japan and China). We outline the criteria and procedures for involuntary admission to psychiatric hospitals and to community services, illustrate the key features of laws related to these issues, and discuss their implications for contemporary psychiatric practice. This review may help to standardize the introduction of legislation that allows involuntary admission and treatment of patients with mental disorders in the mainland of China, and contribute to improved mental-health care. In this review, involuntary admission or treatment does not include the placement of mentally-ill offenders, or any other aspect of forensic psychiatry.

Current research literature contains very few international, cross-cultural comparison studies of persons adjudicated 'Not Criminally Responsible on Account of Mental Disorder' (NCRMD). This study explores and compares the demographic differences between persons found NCRMD in British Columbia, Canada and Hunan, China. Eight variables such as sex, age, education level, marital status, conviction history, psychiatric history, and index offence are compared between the Canadian and Chinese cohorts. The Canadian and Chinese cohorts were similar in sex and psychiatric history. The divorce rate, educational level, and conviction histories were significantly higher, and the age was significantly older in the Canadian cohort. The Chinese cohort had higher levels of murder and attempted murder index offences. Differences between the two cohorts can be explained in terms of legislative and cultural differences.