*17-MAY-2012* *NEPAL* : Since the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) came into force on May 3, 2008, it not only ensured the rights of persons with disabilities but it created lots of confusion and controversy in terms of implementing those rights in reality. In particular, it has been a constant battle for people who advocate for the rights of persons with mental and psychosocial disability, to convert those CRPD- guaranteed rights into the national policy framework.
The CRPD is a complex document. It took three years for me to understand its spirit and be convinced that it actually works to protect the rights of persons with mental or psychosocial disability. CRPD clearly defines people with disabilities as follows: “persons with disabilities include those who have long-term physical, mental, intellectual or sensory impairments which in interaction with various barriers may hinder their full and effective participation on an equal basis with others.” It is clear that in contrary to the traditional notion of disability—whose understanding is limited only to physical impairments—the CRPD has endorsed mental or psychosocial disability as part of the broader disability groups. There are rights in the CRPD, but we are nonetheless failing to find ways to create an environment where such rights can be realised and enjoyed. The CRPD is an international law. It is thus simply a tool of cumulative rights which forces a change in domestic laws in line with its human rights standard. In the context of psychosocial disability rights, anti-discrimination, equality before law and the right to receive quality mental health services in the community are centrally important in both the CRPD and in Nepal. Besides this, there are other issues like quality life, education, and inclusion, which are also equally important. In addressing these major issues three bills are currently under discussion in Nepal. They are: disability bill, health bill, and mental health bill. Questions have been raised: where should the focus be in order to convert the rights guaranteed in the CRPD in the national policy framework? Is it better to address rights by creating a separate mental health bill for those with psycho-social disabilities, or to include them in the health bill? Do we need a mental health bill to protect the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities? Or is it better to split the rights between the health and disability bill instead? To discuss these issues and give strategic direction to the government, on May 16, a couple of days ago there was a national consultation meeting hosted by the Nepal Mental Health Policy Group—a loose group of prominent politicians and policy makers who are seriously concerned with mental health and psychosocial disability issues. In the meeting, Indian scholar and activist, Bhargavi Davar, who herself is a childhood survivor of psychiatric institutions in India, made a presentation for senior bureaucrats, politicians and policy makers which forced them to ponder seriously about the advantages of not having a mental health bill to promote and protect the rights of persons with psychosocial disabilities. Her presentation on the mental health bill was quite interesting. Generally, the world over, people assume that it’s a great thing to have a separate mental health bill. Even in Nepal, we have already spent three years in negotiations to create a mental health bill in line with the CRPD. But, as pointed out by Davar, if we look at the world history of such bills, they are all formed in the same way that penal codes are formed. They mostly carry colonial baggage and are thus oppressive. It’s called a rights instrument, but it’s a ‘historical perversion’ that locks people up forcefully in mental ‘asylums’. Ironically, Nepal’s proposed mental health bill also reflects such a colonial mindset in the name of protecting rights and providing services. Davar’s observation, that countries without a mental health bill are performing well, is true. In terms of community driven initiatives and other programmatic incentives—as opposed to institutionalisation— in meeting the needs of persons with psychosocial disabilities, a mental health bill, because of its inherent colonial roots, is counter-productive. In the Phillipines, such community-driven initiatives have been possible precisely because there is no legal documents which forces treatment to patients. In Nepal’s case as well, in absence of a mental health bill, we luckily do not have state-sponsored institutions to lock people up in and provide legally-approved forced treatment. Considering the likeliness of the colonial baggage a mental health bill would carry in Nepal, and having considered the alternative of integrating mental health rights into the health and disability bills, we have begun to think that a separate bill won’t guarantee any more freedoms, but instead, take way from an individual’s right to choice. The right to choice, it must be remembered, is a fundamental human right and must be respected at all costs. Even in terms of fighting stigma, offering mental health services at the community level, protecting rights and promoting integrated mental health services, is the best way forward. This can be done by distributing the rights guaranteed in the CRPD between health bill and disability bill in case of psycho-social disability and beyond. If we can ensure the inclusion of mental health service-related rights in the health bill, and can advocate to guarantee civil, political, cultural and social rights of people with psycho-social disability in the disability bill, a separate mental health bill seems entirely unnecessary. This is the direction all stakeholders should now take. The Nepal Mental Health Policy Group has a huge task ahead of itself. http://www.ekantipur.com/the-kathmandu-post/2012/05/17/oped/no-country-for-cuckoos/234999.html -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Mental Health Advocacy (News 'N Views) India" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/MhaNewsViewsIndia?hl=en ------------- Affiliated Groups : MENTAL HEALTH ADVOCACY INDIA [email protected] Discussions on mental health law / policy / plan monitoring / human rights etc [email protected] India-specific news and views related to mental health [email protected] Information and support to carers of people with mental health issues [email protected] Mutual support and sharing of experiential knowledge, skills and social learning amongst peers
