Mental Health Tribunal vs Community Treatment Order (WCH v Mental Health Tribunal (Human Rights) (Amended)

Running Head: HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS
Health Law and Ethics
Name
Institution

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS 2
Health Law and Ethics
Summary
In the case (WCH v Mental Health Tribunal (Human Rights) (Amended) [2016] VCAT
199), the VCAT was requested to reflect on a community treatment order (CTO) of the Mental
Health Tribunal (MHT) be annulled due to the compulsory disease management criteria
established in the Mental Health Act 2014 were not met. Significantly, WCH presented in the
case that the CTO had violated the rights of the citizens and breached the citizen’s rights as
provided in the Charter of Human Rights. Consequently, WCH had been detected with mental
disorder in 1993 where he was attended using CTO in the past sixteen years (Christopher &
Callaghan, 2017). WCH did not consider that had the disorder and Tribunal established the fact
that client had no mental disorder under MH Act plus ordered that CTOs should be cancelled as
this was in line with defendant’s rights as provided in provisions of human rights.
Autonomy
The respect for autonomy is a standard of respecting, as well as encouraging independent
choices, by instituting the need to respect the capability of an individual to independent choices.
This implies that autonomous actions must be subjected to controlling restraints by other
individuals. Under the ethical perspective, patients that have the capacity to make decisions
should be allowed to do so and not subjected to compulsory treatment methods or therapies.
Subjecting an individual to mandatory treatments will be infringing the autonomy to make
decisions. The element of autonomy is evident in the case where WCH should be given the
autonomy to make decisions regarding the mode of treatment that he needs rather than subject

HEALTH LAW AND ETHICS 3
him to a treatment that seems to violate his autonomy in making treatment decisions (Ingram,
Muirhead & Harvey, 2009). Particularly, VCAT was needed to ascertain whether WCH had a
mental disease and whether, because WHC had mental disease, he required immediate treatment
to stop severe worsening in his mental wellbeing and to an extent the physical health or severe
harm or another individual under the MH Act. The principle of this specific act mirrors the move
to the delivery of mental health services that focus on autonomy, in which an individual
receiving care has the right to make own choices regarding the kind of treatment. However,
based on ethics, WCH should be given a chance to make decisions concerning his state of health
because he has the autonomy to make informed decisions and must not be forced by the tribunal.
The current compulsory treatment order appears to infringe on the autonomy of WCH as it
violates his autonomy of thinking, as well as rights as an Australian resident. Thus, WCH should
be given the autonomy to make decisions concerning his treatment methods rather than the
current compulsory treatment orders (Beauchamp & Childress, 2019).
In this case, WCH has not been shown to lack the capability to undertake decisions
regarding his mode of treatment and should be allowed to make choices, which would advantage
him. Based on the utilitarianism, the patient should be given a chance to make decisions that will
make him happier other than subjecting him to community treatment orders that will further
harm his current mental illness. WCH should be permitted to undertake decisions concerning his
treatment, which will promote autonomy and will own the decisions he has made (Peele &
Chodoff, 2009).
The Principle of Beneficence and Non-Maleficence