[The current compulsory hospitalization order and patients' rights]

Israel's "Treatment of Mentally Sick Persons Law" of 1955 was repealed and replaced by the "Treatment of Mental Patients Law" of 1991. Under the latter, the "Compulsory Hospitalization Order" (CHO) defines the new order based on accumulated experience with the old legislation, and on the philosophy that considers the CHO one of the most severely oppressive forms of deprivation of human liberty and rights. The new order sets limits and boundaries for CHO, guarding the rights of those unavoidably committed by force. According to the new law, the district psychiatrist decides upon and issues the order, while the tribunal (District Psychiatric Committee) considers appeals. The order is limited to 1 week, with an option for the district psychiatrist to prolong it on written request for up to 14 days. The tribunal can later prolong the order further. The objective of this study was to review changes that have occurred following enforcement of the new law in the Jerusalem district. A comparison was made between CHO's issued the year before the new legislation took effect and the year after. The comparison included review of all CHO's and medical files of all patients hospitalized by coercion during 1990 and 1992. It was assumed that there would be a decline in rate and length of hospitalization of patients forced to be committed by the new law. The main findings refuted this hypothesis. In 1992 there was an increase of 38% in the number of compulsory hospitalizations. This increase derived mainly from increased demands for CHO's from psychiatric emergency rooms. There was also an increase in patients hospitalized by order of the District Psychiatric Committee using its authority under section 10(C) of the law. Conversely, length of compulsory hospitalization was shorter under the new law. In light of these findings, it would seem that the new law has only partially fulfilled expectations of reform in individual rights. There is need for further evaluation and follow-up of the CHO in order to determine whether the "Treatment of Mental Patients Law" of 1991 has in fact fulfilled its objectives. Furthermore, it is necessary to determine means, medical or legal, that may possibly advance further the prospective of human rights while maintaining a suitable balance between civil liberties and clinical needs, of over-confinement versus under-treatment, which may lead to neglect or danger.