The World Health Organization (WHO) has identified mental health as a priority for global health promotion and international development to be targeted through promulgation of evidence-based medical practices, health systems reform, and respect for human rights. Yet these overlapping strategies are marked by tensions as the historical primacy of expert-led initiatives is increasingly subject to challenge by new social movements - in particular, disabled persons' organizations (DPOs). These tensions come into focus upon situating the WHO's mental health policy initiatives in light of certain controversies arising under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), particularly as it applies to persons with mental (psychosocial) disabilities. I examine two such controversies - concerning, respectively, the legitimacy of involuntary psychiatric interventions and the legitimacy of regimes of substitute decision-making. These controversies illustrate the radical challenges to global and domestic mental health policy that have gained new momentum through the participation of DPOs in the CRPD process. At the same time, they illustrate the need for ongoing, inclusive forums for deliberation at the nexus of mental health policy and human rights, aimed at enabling human flourishing within a framework of respect for diversity.

This article provides an overview of the ways in which the mistreatment and neglect of older people have come to be understood as a social problem, one which is underpinned by a variety of substantive and theoretical assumptions. It connects the process of conceptualizing elder abuse and neglect to political-economic and social evolution. The authors draw on a review of the literature, government sources, interest group websites, and their own research to provide a critical commentary illustrating how these understandings have become manifest in legislation, policies, and programs pertaining to "elder abuse and neglect" in Canada. Suggestions are provided for changes in direction for policies, programs, and research.

Advance planning has increased over the last 2 decades in Canada. Nonetheless, further efforts are needed to encourage Canadians to voice their health care and research preferences in the event of incapacity. Physicians are well situated to promote advance planning to Canadians.

A large majority of Canadians are comfortable with proxy consent for low-risk research. Further work is needed to establish what kinds of research are considered to be low risk.

In Canada, provincial and territorial laws address circumstances in which a substitute decision-maker may be appointed for an adult deemed legally incapable of making decisions in one or more areas of life. We searched for provincial and territorial laws that explicitly address substitute decision-making about research participation, and found significant differences among Canadian jurisdictions. In some provinces and territories there is no direct statutory guidance on the issue. Differences among jurisdictions that address substitute decision-making about research in legislation include whether judicial intervention is required to authorize the substitute decision-maker, whether any advance directive in place must explicitly authorize the decision about research in order for a proxy to consent, and how risk and benefit thresholds beyond which substitute consent to research is prohibited are articulated. It is imperative that government, researchers, and the Canadian public revisit the principles underpinning substitute decision-making about research in light of national and international norms, in order to lend clarity and consistency to this area of law and research practice.