News
The Minister for National Disability Insurance Scheme has ruled out the use of chemical restraints as an appropriate form of treatment of disability.
It comes after a government official confirmed during public hearings that new "appropriate treatment" requirements under proposed NDIS legislation could include a requirement for participants to take medication — after being given multiple opportunities to explicitly rule out chemical restraints.
During his weekend appearance on ABC’s Insiders, NDIS Minister, Mark Butler, addressed several safety concerns regarding how the reforms will impact the community.
We wouldn't expect them to undertake psychotropic treatment that would effectively amount to chemical restraint. We've been very clear about that... Obviously we'd take a deeply ethical approach to this, not expect people to avail themselves of treatments that anyone would regard as unreasonable.
Mark Butler, NDIS Minister
In response to the direct question of whether people will die due to the proposed NDIS changes, Mr Butler stated on record that, "No, they won't."
The issue was raised repeatedly during Senate hearings on the reform bill.
The Minister went on to argue that the reforms are necessary to secure the future of the NDIS, which he described as the "most significant social reform" since Medicare.
The NDIS was never intended to replace entirely health systems, rehabilitation systems, and the like. It was set up for people with significant and permanent disability
Mark Butler, NDIS Minister
One of the most controversial changes within the Bill introduces new definitions for functional capacity and permanence. The new permanent disability rules would require participants to exhaust "all appropriate treatment" before accessing the scheme.
Many within the community fear this will exclude people with fluctuating or invisible disabilities, such as autism, and force vulnerable individuals to undergo potentially ineffective or expensive treatments to prove their disability.
In response to a question regarding who would oversee the decisions as to whether someone has engaged in all appropriate treatments, Mr Butler claimed the topic would be the subject of further negotiation and advice “going forward.”