June 2, 2023
Exit Submission to ‘Independent Review of Compulsory Assessment’
The Victorian Government in Australia is currently undertaking an ‘Independent review of compulsory assessment and treatment criteria and alignment of decision-making laws’.
In light of the ‘sectionning’ of former Melbourne Chapter Coordinator, Chris Lovelock, in 2022, Lawrence Reddaway (new Melbourne Coordinator) has made an invaluable submission to this inquiry.
As a reminder, Chris Lovelock had told a close friend of his plans to ‘exit’ using sodium nitrite.
This so-called ‘friend’ took it upon himself to notify the authorities. The Police arrived promptly at Chris’ door.
Despite Chris displaying no signs of mental illness (because he was not mentally ill, he had simply made the considered decision to exit), he was involuntarily detained and forcibly admitted to hospital as a psychiatric patient.
After 5 days, the psychiatric staff could find no mental malady. Chris was promptly discharged, although not before the 80-year old had contracted Covid.
Six months later, in January 2023, Chris would die peacefully at home.
However, Chris’ experience loss of liberty and the utter trampling by the State of Chris’ human rights, has inspired Lawrence to take up the baton in his memory.
Lawrence’s submission reads:
Illustrating Victoria’s Appalling System
In July 2022 an acquaintance of mine, who was planning to end his own life, was taken into custody for many days under the provisions of the Mental Health Act, despite being very clearly not mentally ill.
In effect it seemed that, even though suicide is not a crime, and even though there was no evidence of mental ill-health (apart from the innocent stated intention to end his own life for cogent reasons), the ‘powers that be’ considered it appropriate to take him into custody (in a hospital mental ward) for several days.
He was finally released, and several months later he did indeed end his own life in a peaceful and civilized manner.
Essential Features for the New System
- If an authority is alerted to a person exhibiting worrying behaviour, then that authority should have the right to counsel that person in a gentle and caring manner. (But not via a police visit, for example, as happened to my acquaintance.)
- However, any right of any authority to constrain that person’s lifestyle against his/her will should be very stringently controlled. Thus any such compulsory intervention should be legitimate only if:
- either the behaviour of the person significantly threatens the wellbeing of others; and/ or
- if the intervention is agreed to by some ‘nearest or dearest’ party who is clearly acting in accordance with the clearly stated wishes of the person, such as being set out in an Advanced Care Directive.
Lawrence Reddaway
Melbourne, Victoria
02 June 2023