scholarly journals The new Mental Disorder Tribunal

2014 ◽  
pp. 29
Author(s):  
Mark Mullins
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Committee Report ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Government

<p>In its final report the Expert Committee on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson proposed a new Mental Disorder Tribunal. This tribunal would have fundamentally different functions, composition, procedure and powers to the present Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs). The Committee’s objective was not merely to repair the failings of the present MHRT system but to replace it with a new structure promoting the principles of patient autonomy and non-discrimination. Reading the Committee report and the Government’s Green Paper proposals in response together it soon becomes clear that the Government has rejected the recommendation that the new mental health law should be based on principles of autonomy and nondiscrimination. In their place the Green Paper puts “safety” and “risk”. While it will incorporate safeguards to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, the “dual aims” of the new Mental Health Act are to be to ensure the health and safety of patients and safety of the public. Whereas the Committee saw the new tribunal as an active guarantor and promoter of individual rights the Green Paper recasts it as a body preoccupied with risk and safety, stating as a fundamental “principle” that: “Issues relating to the safety of the individual patient and of the public are of key importance in determining the question of whether compulsory powers should be imposed”</p>

scholarly journals ‘Offenders, Deviants or Patients’ - Comments on Part Two of the White Paper

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Herschel Prins
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Government

<p align="LEFT">The Government White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act follows closely on the heels of the Green Paper - Reform of the Mental Health Act, 1983 which derives from (but also departs from in many respects) the Report of the Expert Committee chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson. One could say, with some justification, that mental health professionals have been ‘deluged’ with paper in this area in the past year or two, so that trying to discern trends has become very difficult. In particular, the material in the White Paper is somewhat closely written and needs to be read with a good deal of care (or, so it seemed to me). To complicate matters further, offender-patients are also discussed in Part I of the White Paper (The Legal Framework) whereas it would have been more logical to have dealt with the proposed provisions for them in Part II. For clarity, I propose to deal with all these matters under one heading.</p>

scholarly journals English Mental Health Reform: Lessons from Ontario?

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 27
Author(s):  
Peter Bartlett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Civil Rights ◽  
Health Reform ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
The Public ◽  
Mental Health Reform ◽  
The Law ◽  
The Government

<p>Reforms in areas related to mental disability are under debate in England to an extent unprecedented for almost half a century. The Law Commission’s proposals on incapacity, following further consultation from the Lord Chancellor’s Department, have now largely been accepted in principle by the government for legislative enactment at some time in the undetermined future. A joint green paper from the Home Office and the Department of Health has established a policy agenda concerning the governance of people with serious personality disorders. Proposals by an expert committee chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson on mental health reform have likewise been followed up by a government green paper, and the two green papers have in turn resulted in a joint white paper on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983. All this takes place as the Human Rights Act 1998 takes effect, with its guarantees relating to liberty and security of the person, standards for hearings, respect for private and family life, and protection from inhuman or degrading treatment. Throughout the development of the reforms, a number of similar themes have recurred, involving civil rights, the provision of appropriate legal processes, anti-discrimination, the respect for people with capacity, the extension of controls into the community, and the safety both of people with mental disabilities and of the public as a whole.</p><p>At least in the public arena, most of the debate has focussed on the English situation. The premise of this paper is that the situation in the rest of the world may have something to teach us. The paper examines the law of Ontario. While it focuses primarily on those issues related to the Richardson Report and its subsequent government response, Ontario legislation divides issues somewhat differently to English law, and thus overlap with the other reform proposals is inevitable.</p>

scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983: Squandering an Opportunity?

2014 ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Jill Peay
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Time Scale ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Secretary Of State

<p align="LEFT">This article compares and contrasts two recently published documents: the Report of the Expert Committee (chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson) entitled ‘Review of the Mental Health Act 1983’, and ‘Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 - Proposals for Consultation’.</p><p align="LEFT">Whilst both documents were published in November 1999 under the remit of the Department of Health, the Richardson Report preceded the Green Paper. It was delivered in July 1999 to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, John Hutton. The Richardson Committee had been established in September 1998 by the DoH in order to provide them with expert advice. The Committee was serviced by the DoH. Accordingly, the contents of the final report would have come as no surprise to them, since they had themselves been fully exposed to the developing reasoning of Richardson. In publishing their own Green Paper some four months later, the DoH had had an opportunity to reflect upon the final Richardson Report. Nonetheless, some might argue that, given the time-scale involved in the production of other similar documents in the field, this rush to a Green Paper was unseemly and unwise. Moreover, since it departs markedly from the recommendations of Richardson, one might argue that the pressure to produce has been, and will prove, counter-productive.</p>

scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 – Convention Implications of the Green Paper

2014 ◽  
pp. 99
Author(s):  
Paul Bowen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Devil ◽  
Made In

Assessing the Convention compatibility of the Government proposals for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 set out in the Green Paper1 is largely an exercise in speculation, for three reasons.First, the proposals are very broad; the detail, where the devil may be found, is yet to come.Second, the Convention does not permit the Strasbourg authorities to review the legality of national legislation in the abstract, but only with reference to particular cases after the proceedings are complete2. Although that will not necessarily preclude a domestic court from reviewing the lawfulness of any provision of the new Mental Health Act after incorporation of the Human Rights Act 19983, the comments that can be made in this article are necessarily confined to the<br />general rather than the specific.Third, and perhaps most significantly, it is impossible to predict the impact of the Convention following the coming into force of the Human Rights Act 1998 on 2 October 2000.

scholarly journals ‘Juridogenic’ harm: statutory principles for the new mental health tribunals

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 331-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Obomanu ◽  
H. G. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Explicit Statement ◽  
First Time ◽  
Health Review

The new Mental Health Act for England and Wales is likely to extend the powers of mental health review tribunals (MHRTs) by giving tribunals the power to approve all compulsory treatment (Department of Health, 1999a, b). The medical member may be dropped entirely from the tribunal's proceedings (Richardson & Machin, 2000). In Ireland, a proposed new Mental Health Act will introduce MHRTs for the first time (Calvert, 2000). The 1983 Mental Health Act contains no explicit statement of underlying principles, although some were introduced in the revised Code of Practice. The Expert Committee (Department of Health, 1999b) suggested that the new Act should specify broad principles where these would help in statutory interpretation, particularly because a range of practitioners working in different settings will be required to understand and implement its provisions. The Green Paper initially suggested that the proper place for setting out principles should be a Code of Practice, but ended by inviting comments on the principles proposed by the Expert Committee, and on whether inclusion of principles would aid interpretation of the new Act.

scholarly journals Department of Health Review of Research on the Mental Health Act 1983

2014 ◽  
pp. 58
Author(s):  
Martin Humphreys ◽  
Helen Smith
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Current Data ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
School Of Medicine ◽  
King's College ◽  
Invaluable Tool ◽  
The Government ◽  
The Uk

<p align="LEFT">At the same time that the Government published the Report of the Expert Committee on the Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 and the accompanying consultation document, the Department of Health produced a systematic review of research relating to the Mental Health Act 1983. This was written jointly by a team made up of researchers and senior academics from King’s College School of Medicine and Dentistry, St George’s Hospital Medical School and the Institute of Psychiatry in London. It represents a major undertaking and will be an invaluable tool, particularly for those involved in research into mental health law and allied legislation, both in the UK and further afield, but also anyone involved in the care of detained patients. It is strengthened greatly by the fact that it was undertaken in a structured, rigorous and scientific manner and involved those with not only a formidable academic background, but also clinical experience in the use of the Act itself.</p><p align="LEFT">The review is comprehensive, both in form and content. The authors' stated aims to summarise the available current data and from that, determine how the Act has been used, and describe which parts are effective or otherwise, has generally been achieved.</p>

scholarly journals Unethical Mental Health Law; History Repeats Itself

2014 ◽  
pp. 50 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Zigmond ◽  
A. J. Holland
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
The Other ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Decision Making Capacity ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

<p>The powers enshrined in mental health legislation go directly to fundamental principles central to any caring and democratic society. The tension and dilemma that exists is, on the one hand, the importance of respect for an individual’s right to make decision’s affecting his/her own life to, on the other, the recognition that there are people with mental disabilities that may be vulnerable to abuse and/or neglect and who throughout their lives or at particular times need care and/or treatment, which they may not seek or be able to consent to themselves. In any society it is through case law and statute that an attempt is made to resolve this tension and to ensure that individual rights are not infringed and that those who need care and treatment receive what is in their best interest. Thus a change in such legislation requires the most rigorous of examination and must be judged on the grounds that it a) does not infringe accepted principles such as those of the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the European Convention, b) is based on sound ethical principles and does not conflict with the established law of the country, and c) it is practicable and achieves the right balance with respect to the potential tension described above. As practising clinicians (one working in an acute psychiatric service the other in a district learning disability service) we are not in a position expertly to judge the first of these but we believe we can contribute to the second and the third. In this paper we consider specifically the reasons for, and the consequences that follow, the failure on the Government’s part to accept the central importance of decision-making capacity assessment in any new mental health legislation.</p><p>The Green Paper proposals for a new Mental Health Act for England and Wales have now been published. A broad definition of ‘mental disorder’ has been retained, a new system of tribunals is to be established and compulsory treatment in the community would become lawful. However, it rejects the recommendation of the expert committee chaired by Professor Richardson that the assessment of an individual’s decision-making capacity should be a determining factor in the use of compulsory detention. Given this, it does not address the relationship between this legislation and the proposed Mental Incapacity Act. The failure to recognise the central place of decision-making capacity in a modern Mental Health Act is, we believe, a serious omission as it is a reflection of a failure to acknowledge that the basic principle of autonomy is central to such legislation.</p>

scholarly journals Mental Health and Compulsion

2014 ◽  
pp. 16
Author(s):  
Margaret Pedler
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
European Convention ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Mental Health Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Government

<p>This article looks at the role of compulsion in mental health law as it applies to civil patients. It starts by setting out the existing position and the Government’s proposals for reform as set out in the current Green Paper “Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983”. It goes on to consider principles which might be relevant to this area of law and the application of these to the Government proposals. Finally, it looks at the relevance of the European Convention on Human Rights.</p>

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 Reforming the Mental Health Act 1983: ‘Joined Up Compulsion’

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Philip Fennell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personality Disordered

<p>This article discusses the two volume White Paper <em>Reforming the Mental Health Act</em> issued by the Government in December 2000. The two volumes are separately titled <em>The New Legal Framework</em> and <em>High Risk Patients</em>. The foreword to the White Paper appears above the signatures of the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. This is heralded as an example of ‘joined up government’, and indeed one of the themes of the White Paper is the need for closer working between the psychiatric and criminal justice systems. The primary policy goal of the proposals is the management of the risk posed to other people by people with mental disorder, perhaps best exemplified in Volume One of the White Paper which proclaims that ‘Concerns of risk will always take precedence, but care and treatment should otherwise reflect the best interests of the patient.’ This is a clear reflection of the fact that the reforms are taking place against the background of a climate of concern about homicides by mentally disordered patients, whether mentally ill, learning disabled, or personality disordered.</p>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document