Mandatory Procedures and Fairness in Mental Impairment Hearings

Uncertainty has attended procedures for adjudging unfitness to stand trial in Victoria pursuant to the Crimes (Mental Impairment and Unfitness to be Tried) Act 1997 (Vic) and how “special hearings” should be conducted when a person is determined to be unfit to stand trial but does not wish to pursue the defence of not guilty because of mental impairment. In R v Langley [2008] VSCA 81, (2009) 19 VR 90 the Victorian Court of Appeal clarified the procedures to be employed at jury trials on such matters and quashed a decision not in conformity with proper procedures, making clear that denial of fairness to such accused persons has the potential to result in appealable error.     

Human Rights and Review of the Involuntary Status of Patients with a Mental Illness: Kracke after Momcilovic

Arguably, Australia's most significant judicial pronouncement on the human rights of those with mental illnesses was made in 2009 by Justice Bell, the then President of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (“VCAT”). The decision is an exhaustive analysis of the application of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 (Vic) to the involuntary status of a person subject to a community treatment order in Victoria. It occurred in the context of delays in the conduct of reviews of the status of a mentally ill person by Victoria's Mental Health Review Board (“the Board”). The outcome of the hearing was a declaration that the Board had breached the person's human rights to a fair hearing, even though the person's involuntary status on a community treatment order was not disturbed by VCAT. Whilst some important aspects of Justice Bell's decision concerning the general methodology to be applied when analysing human rights were overturned in the subsequent Court of Appeal decision of R v Momcilovic [2010] VSCA 50, the latter decision did not concern mental health and so leaves Kracke as the most detailed articulation and analysis of human rights within this difficult sphere.     

Sexual Surrogate Partner Therapy: Legal and Ethical Issues

The Ben Lewin film The Sessions has drawn attention again to the potential role for sexual surrogate partners and sex workers in enabling persons with disabilities and impairments to give expression to their sexual needs and desires. However, away from the big screen, the ethics of registered health practitioners in themselves engaging in such therapies are highly problematic. Difficult too is the role of such practitioners in being ‘the therapist’ responsible for enabling or brokering sexual contact between their patients and those offering such services for financial reward. In some jurisdictions, arrangements involving sexual surrogate therapy (especially where the therapist benefits from it financially) may not be lawful. Further, in spite of many assertions one way and the other, there are no data enabling evaluation of the success rates of the interventions of sexual surrogates or sex workers. Whether positive outcomes to such interactions are likely in most circumstances, given that the provision of services is predicated upon idealised attachments, is questionable. It is also unclear whether sexual surrogates’ adherence to an ethical code effectively ameliorates the potential for counter-therapeutic consequences from the commodification of intimacy, and it is far from straightforward to identify what steps should be taken by the referring health practitioner to select a suitable provider of sexual services to their patient or client, and then to monitor whether the arrangement is achieving its objectives.     

Determinants of longer time from HIV result to enrollment in publicly funded care and treatment in California by race/ethnicity and behavioral risk

The Early Intervention Program (EIP) is California's publicly funded human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) care and treatment program with 30 sites throughout the state. Our objective for this study was to examine the number of days from first HIV-positive result until enrollment into EIP by race/ethnicity, behavioral risk, and other characteristics, with data from clients who enrolled in an EIP site after the availability of highly active antiretroviral therapies. For Model I, logistic regression distinguished clients diagnosed with HIV and enrolled in EIP on the same day (0 days) from those with values of 1+ days; linear regression was then used on the log transformation of days for the majority of clients not diagnosed and enrolled on the same day. For Model II, logistic regression was used to identify client characteristics related to enrollment in EIP over 6 weeks from the date of HIV diagnosis. We found that Latinos were more likely than whites to enroll in EIP on the day they were diagnosed with HIV. For clients not diagnosed and enrolled in EIP on the same day, no differences across racial and ethnic groups were found for days until enrollment in HIV care and treatment. However, clients with a history of injection drug use took longer from the day they were diagnosed with HIV to enroll in EIP. The California EIP represents a model for programs seeking equity in access to HIV care and treatment across racial and ethnic groups. Getting injectors into timely HIV care and treatment represents a challenge.