People with Learning Disabilities (Mental Impairment) Detained under Part 3 of the Mental Health Act (1983) over the last 13 Years

1998 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan Mason
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Mental Health Act

scholarly journals The use of the Mental Health Act in learning disabilities

1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 596-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Kon ◽  
Nick Bouras
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
The South ◽  
Violent Behaviour ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Young Males ◽  
Mental Health Act

Psychiatrists in learning disabilities in the South-East Thames Region were asked to fill in questionnaires on the last five patients they had sectioned in an attempt to describe current practice in their usage of the Mental Health Act (1983). Clients tended to be sectioned under the category of mental impairment and were mainly young males with violent behaviour. Treatment of mental illness was less of a problem.

scholarly journals Preliminary evaluation of supervised discharge order in the South and West Region

1998 ◽  
Vol 22 (7) ◽  
pp. 421-423 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damian Mohan ◽  
Chris Thompson ◽  
Mark A. Mullee
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Preliminary Evaluation ◽  
The South ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Forensic Patients ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
West Region ◽  
After Care ◽  
Mental Health Patients

Six months after the introduction of the Mental Health (Patients in the Community) Act 1995, this study shows that the new legislation has been implemented in its first six months of existence. Lack of resources and increased paperwork are identified by some doctors as reasons for their reluctance to proceed with implementation of supervised discharge. Patients who were placed on supervised discharge were found to be mostly young, mentally ill patients previously detained under Section 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983, as yet, the 1995 Act does not appear to have been implemented in the after care of ‘forensic’ patients or those with mental impairment.

Section 48: an underused provision?

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Exworthy ◽  
Janet M. Parrott ◽  
Paul K. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State

Section 48 of the Mental Health Act, 1983 (MHA) permits the Secretary of State to authorise the removal to hospital of an unsentenced prisoner who is ‘suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and that he is in urgent need of such treatment’. (Mental Health Act, 1983). Its common usage in the past has been in transfers of unsentenced prisoners from prison to hospital.

scholarly journals Misapplication of mental impairment under the Mental Health Act 1983

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Anjum Bashir ◽  
Sheila Tinto
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Royal College ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Health And Human Rights ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Law

As Professor Eastman (2000) has noted: the law is fond of ‘using’ psychiatry for its own ends at times, but the Mental Health Act 1983 is an example of psychiatrists using the law as a tool of public policy. This makes their education in and interpretation of it all the more vital. The MRCPsych part II module ‘Ethics and the Law’ requires candidates to demonstrate knowledge of relevant mental health and human rights legislation, and to illustrate the appropriate application of such information (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001). We submit a masked case study that in practice seems to us a misinterpretation of the Act.

scholarly journals Pattern of hospital admission before and following the Mental Health Act 1983

1989 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 182-183 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. K. Durani ◽  
R. Ford
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Practice ◽  
Duration Of Treatment ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Holding Power ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Age Limits ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Psychopathic Disorder

The Mental Health Act brought a number of signficant changes to psychiatric practice. Among the most important were changes in the process of compulsory admissions. Other notable alterations have been a change in the definition of the nearest relative; a reduction in duration of treatment section by a half; a right to appeal against their detention by all patients; the observation section becoming an assessment and treatment section; the introduction of nurses holding power; the removal of age limits for admission of patients with psychopathic disorder and mental impairment, and the introduction of the treatability clause. These and other important differences could be expected to interact with social work and psychiatric practice to influence the number of compulsory admissions. Previous correspondence has examined this question, to which we add our findings.

The use of guardianship in mental handicap services

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 725-727 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Whitworth ◽  
Shashi Singhal
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Mentally Handicapped ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Mental Handicap ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Health Districts

There has been little published on the use of Guardianship Orders in mental handicap (the term ‘mental handicap’ is used rather than ‘people with learning disability’ to avoid ambiguity). Its use in the mental handicap services in four health districts in the Mersey region was surveyed. The study was retrospective, covering a five year period ending August 1994. Guardianship was used on ten occasions. Health professionals have been divided over the interpretation of the definition of “mental impairment” in the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983. They have tended to exclude many mentally handicapped adults who do not, in their opinion, exhibit “abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct”. It is clearly shown by our study that some health professionals are willing to classify self-neglect and vulnerability as “seriously irresponsible conduct”, thererefore allowing wider usage of the order.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document