Mental capacity, responsibility, and mental health legislation

1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 423-425
Author(s):  
Carl Elliott ◽  
Charles Weijer
Author(s):  
Maura McCallion ◽  
Ursula O'Hare

<p>When the Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability completed its work in the autumn of 2007, it drew to a close an extensive consultation and analysis of mental health and learning disability services and the law in Northern Ireland. Its last report on A Comprehensive Legislative Framework made<br />a compelling case for a major overhaul of the law that the Review team itself described as ‘quite radical’. The Review identified the case for reform in the need to ensure that mental health law conforms to the requirements of human rights law, reflects changes to professional practice, reflects the needs of service<br />users and their carers, and keeps pace with reform elsewhere in the UK. Alone of all the jurisdictions in the UK, Northern Ireland has been operating largely in a legislative vacuum in relation to mental capacity law. The Review’s proposals for reform therefore extended to reform of mental health law and the introduction of mental capacity law.</p><p>In the autumn of 2008 the NI Executive published its response to the Bamford Review indicating that it intended to develop the law sequentially: reform of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 by 2011 followed by the introduction of mental capacity law in 2014. Responses to the Executive’s consultation resulted in<br />the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) revising its approach and it signalled its intention to bring forward mental capacity and mental health legislation together. This reated a unique opportunity in Northern Ireland for fusion of incapacity and mental health legislation. A further consultation paper was issued in January 2009, setting out the key approaches to the content<br />of two bills. However as a result of the consultation, the Health Minister Michael McGimpsey announced in September 2009 that there would be a single bill with an overall principle of autonomy. His press statement noted: “ A strong body of opinion, particularly from professional groups and lead voluntary organisations, which considered that separate mental health legislation continues to be stigmatising and recommended that mental capacity and mental health provisions should instead be encompassed into a single piece of legislation”</p><p>This short paper provides an overview of the current direction of travel on law reform in Northern Ireland. It comments on the policy climate and arguments for a fusion of mental capacity and mental health legislation. It also highlights some of the key policy issues that will need to be further explored as the Department develops its law reform proposals and concludes with some hopes and fears for the new legislation.</p>


2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 42-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Roger C. Ho ◽  
Cyrus S. Ho ◽  
Nusrat Khan ◽  
Ee Heok Kua

This article summarises the development of mental health legislation in Singapore in three distinctive periods: pre-1965; 1965–2007 and 2007 onwards. It highlights the origin of mental health legislation and the relationship between mental health services and legislation in Singapore. The Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 and Mental Capacity Act 2008 are described in detail.


2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
pp. 46-64
Author(s):  
Jill Manthorpe ◽  
Stephen Martineau

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine safeguarding adults reviews (SARs) that refer to mental health legislation in order to contribute to the review of English mental health law (2018). Design/methodology/approach Searches of a variety of sources were conducted to compile a list of relevant SARs. These are summarised and their contexts assessed for what they reveal about the use and coherence of mental health legislation. Findings The interaction of the statutes under consideration, in particular the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005, together with the Care Act 2014, presents challenges to practitioners and the efficacy of their application is variable. Research limitations/implications In light of the absence of a duty to report SARs to a national register, it is possible that relevant SARs were missed in the search phase of this research, meaning that the results do not present a complete picture. Practical implications Examining cases where use of legislative provisions in mental health has been found wanting or legislation may not be easily implemented may inform initiatives to increase understanding of the law in this area. Originality/value This paper’s originality and value lie in its focus on mental health legislation as discussed in SARs at a time when both the MHA 1983 and the MCA 2005 are the focus of attention for reform.


2011 ◽  
Vol 4 (12) ◽  
pp. 675-684 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shona N. Bennett ◽  
Mark Harrison ◽  
Michelle Gilmore ◽  
Daniel M. Bennett

GPs may be required to assist in the administration of Mental Health or Mental Capacity Legislation. Although infrequent, this process can be complicated and time consuming. Due to different legal systems, the role of the GP in civil commitment varies considerably throughout the UK. This article aims to give a brief overview of the main pieces of legislation in the different areas of the UK, England and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and to assist the GP in navigating the practicalities of applying the law to clinical cases.


2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (15) ◽  
pp. 72
Author(s):  
Chris Heginbotham ◽  
Mat Kinton

<p>Concepts of mental capacity are taking on an increased importance in the mental health law of the United Kingdom. For England and Wales, the proposal to introduce a threshold requirement of ‘impaired decision-making’ into the criteria for detention under sections 2 and 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 was the first amendment to be voted upon in the House of Lords’ reading of the Mental Health Bill. Despite its emphatic (and whipped) resistance to this amendment, Government lost the vote by a wide margin, although it seems possible, at the time of writing, that the Government will seek to overturn their defeat in the Commons.</p><p>It is therefore timely to re-examine the role of such capacity tests in mental health legislation dealing with detention and treatment. This paper describes as yet unresolved definitional questions that must be encountered when concepts of mental capacity operate as a threshold for coercive psychiatric detention and/or treatment.</p>


Author(s):  
Lisa Forsberg

Anti-libidinal interventions (ALIs) are a type of crime-preventing neurointervention (CPN) already in use in many jurisdictions. This chapter examines different types of legal regimes under which ALIs might be provided to sex offenders. The types of legal regimes examined are dedicated statutes that directly provide for ALI use, consensual ALI provision under general medical law principles, mental health legislation providing for ALI use (exemplified by the mental health regime in England and Wales), and European human rights law as it pertains to ALI provision. The chapter considers what we might learn from ALIs in respect of likely or possible arrangements for the provision of other CPNs, and draws attention to some ethical issues raised by each of these types of regime, worth keeping in mind when considering arrangements for CPN provision.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document