| dc.description.abstract | According to the Constitution of the Republic of China, the personal freedom is protected and should not be arbitrarily violated. However, in the Mental Health Act, mandatory hospitalization measures composing a significant intervention into personal freedom for mental disorders. Therefore, the central focus of this thesis is whether the protection of ＂personal freedom and due process of law ＂ is sufficiently comprehensive within the system of mandatory hospitalization for treatment. In the past, judicial review is not required in the decisions regarding mandatory hospitalization under the Mental Health Act, which leading to questioning by scholars. Although with the amendment of Mental Health Act, promulgated on December 14, 2022, explicitly states that mandatory hospitalization must undergo prior judicial review, addressing the controversy over the lack of a principle of judicial reservation, questions arise regarding whether the substantive or procedural provisions related to mandatory hospitalization are rigorous and detailed enough after the adoption of the judicial reservation. Are procedural safeguards adequate for detained patients? What are the standards for the court to intervene in the review process? Is it rigorous enough? These questions will be the focus of this thesis to further understand and clarify.
Furthermore, many international conventions have provisions related to the protection of personal freedom for individuals with mental disorders. Especially, how to balance the conflict between the The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the law of our domestic laws is worth discussing. In terms of foreign laws, the mental health laws of the United States, Germany, and Canada have advanced considerably, providing valuable insights for our country to learn from, in order to enhance the protection of personal freedom and the principle of due process. In addition, the European Court of Human Rights and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany have expressed opinions on mandatory hospitalization cases, highlighting the importance foreign courts place on this issue. The insights provided by these foreign courts can serve as references for our judicial practice to address inadequacies in the current legal system. Therefore, this thesis aims to identify shortcomings or inadequacies in the mandatory hospitalization provisions of the Mental Health Act through the exploration of relevant theories, analysis, and comparison with international conventions and foreign legal systems, to provide suggestions for amendments and possible directions for revision, serving as a reference for future legislative revisions or the design of related legal frameworks. | en_US |