From the Newsletter of Whistleblowers Australia:
THE WHISTLE AUGUST 1997 PAGE 12

Amendments to the NSW Mental Health Act
By RICHARD GOSDEN

It is not unusual for whistleblowers to be referred for medical, psychiatric or psychological assessment as a condition of continued employment. When this happens the health professional making the assessment is likely see the whistleblower's employer as the client, rather than the whistleblower, and this might influence the outcome of the assessment. If a whistleblower's beliefs about perceived malpractice in an organisation are not demonstrably shared by other people these beliefs could easily be interpreted by a doctor or psychiatrist as delusions or disordered thoughts and thus form the basis for a diagnosis of mental illness.

Until recently in NSW such an outcome might embarrass, demoralise and discredit a whistleblower but it was unlikely to lead to incarceration in a mental hospital. This was because involuntary commitment required that a person not only be diagnosed mentally ill but also be physically dangerous. However, changes to the NSW Mental Health Act, which passed through the Parliament in June 1997, might now make medical/psychiatric assessment more hazardous.

The five symptoms of mental illness specified in the Act remain unchanged. These symptoms are delusions, hallucinations, serious thought disorder, serious mood disorder and irrational behaviour. The identification of any one of these symptoms is sufficient to indicate mental illness. But involuntary commitment requires a further determination that the person is also "dangerous".

Before the changes "dangerousness" was defined as a risk of "serious physical harm" to self or other people. But the amendments have deleted the word "physical" from the criteria and now a person only has to be thought likely to cause "serious harm". An explanatory note attached to the amendments defines "serious harm" as including harm to finances or reputation. It is clear from the wording that this type of harm can be applied to either the supposed mentally ill person or another party.
These changes mean that if a medical practitioner forms the belief that a whistleblower's story is delusional, or the product of disordered thinking, and that its telling might cause harm to the finances or reputation of another party, then these will be sufficient grounds to incarcerate the person in a mental hospital. Although there is a supposedly fail-safe system designed to prevent inappropriate or mischievous incarceration, whereby two hospital doctors have to confirm a certifying doctor's diagnosis before admittance, this system might not be reliable. In 1995, for instance, 99.6% of the people delivered to mental hospitals in NSW under a doctor's certificate were admitted by the hospital doctors.
This indicates either that the certifying doctors are very accurate in their front-line assessments of mental illness or alternatively that once a label of mental illness has been attached to a person other doctors have a tendency to confirm it automatically.

 

Back