■根据联合国残疾人权利公约,印度政府用变革性的“印度心理健康法案”取代了1987年的“心理健康法案”,2017\“(IMHCA2017),于2017年4月7日获得总统批准。虽然新法案符合CRPD准则,强调晋升,保护和实现完整和公平的人权,法律行为能力,精神病患者的平等和尊严,它面临着各种利益相关者的不同批评,尤其是精神科医生。本研究使用现有的已发表资源系统地探讨了精神科医生对IMHCA2017的批评和担忧,并在CRPD指南的背景下评估了这些批评。
■我们对文献进行了范围审查,使用PubMed和Scopus等两个搜索引擎。该评论涵盖了学术出版物,来自国家和国际来源的报告和文件,由精神病学家和精神病学组织撰写,与IMHCA2017有关。主要搜索词“IMHCA2017”的使用没有时间限制。最终分析包括印度和世界各地的心理健康专业人员撰写的出版物。通过定性分析,确定了反映精神科医生观点的关键主题。这些主题,以大量批评为标志,然后根据CRPD的指导原则进行评估,包括其任择议定书和一般性意见。
■该研究分析了33份手稿,讨论了对IMHCA2017的批评和担忧。手稿类型包括意见文件(60.6%),原创研究文章(21.21%),评论文章(9.09%),社论(6.06%)和评论(3.03%)。除了一篇文章外,所有文章都是由精神病学家撰写的,其中5名由非印度作家撰写,其余由印度精神病学家撰写。大多数文章发表在印度精神病学杂志上(75.76%),一些在其他期刊上。大约54.55%的人严格审查了法案规定,45.45%强调积极方面。分析确定了七个突出的批评主题:临床忧虑,缺乏清晰度和全面性,可行性挑战,忽视照顾者,对精神病医生的不信任,综合医院精神科的危机和意识形态保留。
■每个主题都在CRPD指南的背景下进行了严格评估,并提出了相应的建议。
UNASSIGNED: Informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, the Indian government replaced the 1987 Mental Health Act with the transformative \"Indian Mental Healthcare Act, 2017\" (IMHCA 2017), which gained presidential approval on April 7, 2017. While the new act aligns with CRPD guidelines, emphasizing the promotion, protection and realization of complete and equitable human rights, legal capacity, equality and dignity for persons with mental illness, it has faced diverse criticism from various stakeholders, particularly
psychiatrists. This study systematically explores the critiques and apprehensions expressed by psychiatrists regarding the IMHCA 2017 using available published resources and assesses these criticisms within the context of CRPD guidelines.
UNASSIGNED: We conducted a scoping
review of the literature, using two search engines like PubMed and Scopus. The
review covered academic publications, reports and documents from both national and international sources, authored by
psychiatrists and psychiatric organizations, related to the IMHCA 2017. The primary search term \"IMHCA 2017\" was used without temporal restrictions. Publications authored by mental health professionals from India and around the world were included in the final analysis. Through qualitative analysis, key themes reflecting psychiatrists\' viewpoints were identified. These themes, marked by substantial criticism, were then assessed in accordance with the guiding principles of the CRPD, including its optional protocol and general comments.
UNASSIGNED: The study analyzed 33 manuscripts discussing criticisms and concerns about IMHCA 2017. Manuscript types included opinion papers (60.6%), original research articles (21.21%),
review articles (9.09%), editorials (6.06%) and comments (3.03%). All but one article were authored by psychiatrists, with five by non-Indian authors and the rest by Indian
psychiatrists. Most articles were published in the Indian Journal of Psychiatry (75.76%), with some in other journals. About 54.55% critically scrutinized act provisions, while 45.45% highlighted positive aspects. The analysis identified seven prominent criticism themes: clinical apprehensions, lack of clarity and comprehensiveness, feasibility challenges, neglect of caregivers, mistrust toward psychiatrists, crises in general hospital psychiatry units and ideological reservations.
UNASSIGNED: Each theme was critically assessed in the context of CRPD guidelines, and corresponding recommendations were formulated.