British Columbia Premier David Eby has unveiled proposed adjustments to the Mental Health Act aimed at safeguarding health-care providers administering involuntary care from legal repercussions. These modifications are in response to an ongoing legal challenge to the act, specifically targeting a provision criticized for impeding patients’ consent to treatment.
Eby expressed concerns that frontline health workers might lose protection if the current provision is overturned by the court, prompting the need for clearer safeguards. While the premier argues for the necessity of these changes to ensure liability protection for health-care workers, some industry members question the need for such modifications, citing existing coverage under the act.
The proposed alteration would eliminate the initial segment of Section 31 of the Mental Health Act, which assumes patient consent for treatment authorized by the director. Additionally, a new clause in Section 16 would absolve workers from liability if they deliver care or services authorized by a director in good faith.
Central to the court challenge is the contentious “deemed consent” provision, which implies consent to psychiatric treatment for involuntarily detained individuals, a practice criticized for potentially compromising humane treatment and infringing on Charter rights.
Critics, including Angela Russolillo from the University of British Columbia’s school of nursing, argue that the proposed changes are misguided and could exacerbate confusion within the system. They emphasize the need for preemptive measures to prevent crises and promote wellness, rather than relying on involuntary interventions.
Furthermore, Jeremy Valeriote, a Green Party MLA, criticized the amendments as inadequate and urged a comprehensive review of the Mental Health Act to align with evidence-based mental health practices. Concerns have been raised by advocacy groups, such as the Canadian Students for Sensible Drug Policy, suggesting that the amendments could be a strategic move to circumvent ongoing legal challenges.
Despite the proposed changes, Eby affirmed the government’s commitment to ensuring the protection of health-care workers and emphasized that the amendments do not nullify the court’s deliberation on the broader issues surrounding involuntary care and treatment. Additionally, the province has pledged a thorough review of the Mental Health Act to address evolving needs and concerns within the healthcare system.