Consistencies and Inconsistencies: Mental Health, Compulsory Treatment and Community Capacity Building in England, Wales and Australia

In relation to mental health, it is clear that medicalized underpinnings,the provision of a clinically orientated evidence base for practiceand the need to contain ‘risk’ continue to be prioritized,particularly when compulsory intervention is considered. Thisis despite the increasing influence of a citizenship and socialjustice agenda which is being promoted by psychiatrists involvedin the development of ‘postpsychiatry’, as wellas by service users/survivors. These drivers are not mutuallyexclusive, but in the context of compulsory treatment, thereare clear tensions. In this article, the policy surroundingmental health and compulsory intervention in Australia and inEngland and Wales is explored. In the context of this discussion,three ways in which current government policy can be interpretedare examined and links made between these interpretations anddifferent ways of viewing the relationship between mental healthand community capacity building. With regard to social workpractice, it is argued that a response to mental ill healthwhich concentrates on an individualized ‘diagnose andtreat’ approach, which particularly comes to the foreat times of compulsory intervention, has limited capacity tofacilitate community engagement, foster social inclusion andgenerate reciprocal dynamics between positive mental healthand community capacity building.