scholarly journals Consent to Treatment: Legal and Ethical Aspects

1981 ◽  
Vol 5 (11) ◽  
pp. 207-209
Author(s):  
Paul Bowden
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Medical Officer ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Ethical Aspects ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
Patient’S Will ◽  
Policy Committee

In anticipating the consultative paper A Review of the Mental Health Act, 1959 the College's Public Policy Committee prepared a report in 1974 (News and Notes, October, November 1974). The second of six points covered in the report related to compulsory detention and treatment. It reads:The Working Party are firmly of the view that compulsory powers should include the power to treat patients compulsorily for any form of mental disorder, but has doubts as to how far certain types of treatment should be applied on the sole authority of the Responsible Medical Officer against the patient's will or when he is incapable of giving consent.

scholarly journals Ethics and Section 58 of the Mental Health Act (1983)

1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 481-483
Author(s):  
Femi Oyebode
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Drug Treatment ◽  
Medical Officer ◽  
Present Form ◽  
British National Formulary ◽  
National Formulary ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment

Section 58 is in the part (Part IV) of the Act which is largely concerned with consent to treatment by patients detained on Sections 2, 3, or 37 of the Mental Health Act (1983). It applies to drug treatment if three months or more have elapsed since drugs were first given during the period of detention. It also applies to ECT at any time during the period of detention. Where a patient consents to treatment which comes under Section 58, and which the responsible medical officer (RMO) has proposed and explained to the patient, the RMO is required to certify in writing, on Form 38, that the patient is capable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effect of the treatment and that the patient has consented (DOH, 1987). The Code of Practice (DOH, 1990) advises that the RMO should indicate on the certificate the drugs proposed, by the classes described in the British National Formulary (BNF), indicating the dosages if they are above BNF advisory maximum limits. The method of administration should also be indicated. This paper will argue that Section 58 in its present form does not strengthen the patient's right to consent to treatment and that the form of words advised in the Code of Practice with respect to Form 38 is faulty in conception.

Consent to Treatment, Second Opinion Appointed Doctors and Code Compliance - an Audit?

2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
A. Qureshi ◽  
G. Kirk
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Treatment Plan ◽  
Medical Officer ◽  
Second Opinion ◽  
Care Plan ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Consent To Treatment

Aim:Ensuring standards of section 58 documentation and associated communication complies with the code of practice of the Mental Health Act 1983 UK.Method:Case note review of detained patients under section 3 of Mental Health Act (MHA) 1983, requiring either a certificate of consent to treatment (form 38) or a certificate of second opinion authorising treatment (form 39), beyond first three months of medication. A standard checklist was devised, based on recommendations of MHA commission and code of practice.Results:Form 38 (5 Patients), 100% completion of names, dosage, route of adminstration of medication and proposed number of ECT treatments. Only 60% completion of documentation regarding treatment plan explanation and stating whether clozapine was included excluded.Form 39 (7 patients) completed correctly in 100% cases with recommendation by second opinion appointed doctor (SOAD) in 85% cases. No documentation by SOAD in case notes and contact with the responsible medical officer (RMO) was only by phone (should have face to face contact). Only in 28% of cases RMO documented the SOAD visit and outcome.Conclusion:This audit has highlighted wide range of implications from the medico-legal perspective. The statutory documents, form 38 and 39, were completed correctly in majority of cases except for minor omissions. Adequate documentation was lacking with regards to discussion about the care plan and outcome of the SOAD visit. SOAD contact with the RMO was only on the phone (should only be in emergency) and no documentation of the second opinion in the case notes apart from filling the form 39.

scholarly journals Treatment for Mental Disorder - another step backwards?

2014 ◽  
pp. 180
Author(s):  
Simon Foster
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Psychiatric Patient ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Legal Analysis ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Legitimate Interests ◽  
The Right

The case concerns the right of a psychiatric patient to choose to die by refusing intervention from the hospital. The Court considered the treatment provisions of Part IV of the Mental Health Act, capacity at common law and the legitimate interests of society in preserving life. However the notoriety of Mr Brady, and his own personality, meant that underlying the judgment were considerations of public policy as much as legal analysis.

scholarly journals Mental Health Act reform

1999 ◽  
Vol 23 (10) ◽  
pp. 578-581 ◽  
Author(s):  
Trevor Turner ◽  
Mark Salter ◽  
Martin Deahl
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Medical Profession ◽  
Medical Model ◽  
Chief Executive ◽  
Radical Change ◽  
Medical Decision ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
Mental Treatment ◽  
Health Legislation

Psychiatrists have been complaining about mental health legislation for over a century (Smith, 1891), usually in terms of the delays engendered, paperwork and bureaucracy, and the impositions on clinical practice. As a result they have gained more powers, and perhaps much-needed status within the medical profession, to the concern of some commentators (e.g. Fennell, 1996). Thus, the ‘triumph of legalism’ (Jones, 1993) of the Lunacy Act 1890 was modified by the Mental Treatment Act 1930, whereby outpatients and voluntary patients were encouraged and ‘asylums' became ‘mental hospitals'. Then came the radical change of the Mental Health Act (MHA) 1959, making compulsory detention an essentially medical decision and removing the routine of the courts, but retaining a theme of requiring ‘treatment in hospital’. The Mental Health Act 1983, however, was a touch anti-medical, since it strengthened the role of the approved social worker (ASW) and enhanced the importance of a patient's consent to treatment. “The primacy of the medical model and the paramountcy of the psychiatrist are certainly subject to greater limitations and external review”, was the opinion of William Bingley, then Mind's Legal Director, now Chief Executive of the Mental Health Act Commission – reviewing the Act in its early days (Bingley, 1985).

The Use of Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 in a Family of Rural English Police Forces

2003 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-79 ◽  
Author(s):  
Neil Greenberg ◽  
Niki Haines
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Hospital Admissions ◽  
Rural Setting ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Act Assessment ◽  
Police Forces

Section 136 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is used by police officers to detain persons who they feel might be suffering with mental disorder until a formal Mental Health Act assessment can be undertaken. Previous studies have shown that the outcomes of these assessments result in remarkably different rates of subsequent hospital admissions. Within a rural setting it has also been shown that the rate of use of Section 136 varies considerably. This study examines the use of Section 136 within a family of eight police forces that have been matched to ensure that they cover similar populations. The results show that there are considerable variations in the use of Section 136, with the Devon and Cornwall region using the section over two and a half times the mean for the group. Possible reasons for this discrepancy are discussed.

scholarly journals The Mental Health Act 1983 Draft Code of Practice: Mental Health Act Commission's Discussion Paper on Consent to Treatment

1986 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 220-222
Author(s):  
Lord Colville
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Medical Journal ◽  
British Medical Journal ◽  
Discussion Paper ◽  
Draft Code ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment ◽  
And Function

Professor Bluglass has recently written in the Bulletin on this subject. Articles have also appeared in the British Medical Journal by Dr Hamilton and Professor Kendell. Comments were invited on both documents: to the DHSS on the Code and to MHAC on their paper. To judge by the articles referred to, clarification of the background to and function of both documents is urgently needed.

scholarly journals Consent to Treatment by the Mentally Ill and Mentally Handicapped—An Anomaly in the Mental Health Act 1983

1983 ◽  
Vol 7 (8) ◽  
pp. 145-145 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bridgit C. Dimond
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Short Term ◽  
Mentally Handicapped ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Consent To Treatment

I would like to bring to light an apparent oversight in the new statutory rules relating to consent to treatment by the mentally ill and mentally handicapped. This will have very serious consequences for the management of patients who are on short-term detention orders. The provisions relating to consent to treatment set out in Part IV of the Mental Health Act 1983 are the first attempt to cover by statutory controls the doctor's clinical freedom to prescribe treatment for his compulsorily detained patient. In addition, certain of the new provisions (which take effect from 30 September 1983) apply to the voluntary patients as well.

scholarly journals The case for removing intellectual disability and autism from the Mental Health Act

2019 ◽  
Vol 215 (5) ◽  
pp. 633-635
Author(s):  
Sheila Hollins ◽  
Keri-Michèle Lodge ◽  
Paul Lomax
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Learning Disability ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Serious Mental Illnesses

SummaryIntellectual disability (also known as learning disability in UK health services) and autism are distinct from the serious mental illnesses for which the Mental Health Act is designed to be used. Their inclusion in the definition of mental disorder is discriminatory, resulting in unjust deprivations of liberty. Intellectual disability and autism should be excluded from the Mental Health Act.Declaration of interestNone.

Intelligence of Patients in Subnormality Hospitals: A Survey of Admissions in 1961

1965 ◽  
Vol 111 (472) ◽  
pp. 219-225 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. H. F. Castell ◽  
P. J. Mittler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Community Care ◽  
Working Party ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
British Psychological Society

This paper is one of two considering certain aspects of the Mental Health Act, 1959, in relation to subnormal patients; it is based on a report of a Working Party submitted to the Council of the British Psychological Society and is published with the Society's approval. (The second paper (Mittler and Castell, 1964) considers plans for hospital and community care.)

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document