I’m not convinced the new Act will really better protect people with severe mental illness. Although the criteria for detention have been tightened up and the civil compulsory treatment of autism and learning disability will also require the presence of psychiatric disorder, in my view an opportunity has been lost to have a truly rights-based review of the Mental Health Act (MHA) in line with WHO/OHCHR guidance to countries on mental health legislation (see eg. previous post). This would include the abolition of compulsory treatment in the community which I do not think can be justified, at least for civil patients (see eg. another previous post). I welcome the introduction of the new S56 arrangements to introduce statutory care planning, although how this will work out in practice remains to be seen (see eg. yet another previous post). I worry that the new Act will merely create more bureaucracy by increasing the number of Tribunals and providing more access to SOADs and Tribunals. I am also concerned about how the voice of carers may be lost by the introduction of the role of the Nominated Person.
As far as I am concerned, reform should have been about abolishing Community Treatment Orders CTOs); making the Tribunal more rights-based, including being able to intervene about treatment as well as detention; improving advocacy and access to a truly independent second opinion, leading to the abolition of so-called second opinions from appointed doctors (SOADs) from the Care Quality Commission; and preventing admissions to secure facilities for civil detentions (see my submission to the Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill).
No comments:
Post a Comment