Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 185 Pelham Street, Carlton, VIC 3053, Australia.
Fitzroy Legal Service Inc., A merger of Darebin Community Legal Centre and Fitzroy Legal Service Level 4, Fitzroy Town Hall (PO Box 297, Fitzroy 3065 |DX no. 96611) 279 Spring Street, Reservoir 3073 Neighbourhood Justice Centre, 241 Wellington Street, Collingwood 3046 (PO Box 1142, Collingwood 3066 |DX no. 211512)..
Int J Law Psychiatry. 2020 Jan-Feb;68:101535. doi: 10.1016/j.ijlp.2019.101535. Epub 2019 Dec 18.
This article addresses whether autonomy is being adequately protected within therapeutic jurisprudence models. It first outlines the history and theory of therapeutic jurisprudence - noting that protection for autonomy has been theorised as a key component of therapeutic jurisprudence. It then examines therapeutic jurisprudence in light of critical disability theory and identifies that traditional therapeutic models, which often prioritises the decision-making of professionals, can undermine the autonomy of the individual. The article then describes the protection for autonomy provided by the right to legal capacity in Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. An analysis is undertaken of practical examples of where therapeutic jurisprudence falls short of the demands of Article 12. Finally, the article presents solutions for how therapeutic jurisprudence models could better protect autonomy via respect for the right to legal capacity in Article 12.
本文探讨了在治疗法学模式下，自主性是否得到了充分的保护。文章首先概述了治疗法学的历史和理论——指出保护自主性已被理论化为治疗法学的一个关键组成部分。然后，文章从批判性残疾理论的角度审视了治疗法学，并发现传统的治疗模式往往优先考虑专业人士的决策，这可能会损害个人的自主性。文章接着描述了《残疾人权利公约》第十二条所规定的法律能力权利对自主性的保护。文章对治疗法学在哪些方面不符合第十二条要求的实际例子进行了分析。最后，文章提出了治疗法学模式如何通过尊重第十二条所规定的法律能力权利来更好地保护自主性的解决方案。
