scholarly journals Capacity-based mental health legislation and its impact on clinical practice: 1) admission to hospital

Author(s):  
John Bellhouse ◽  
Anthony Holland ◽  
Isabel Clare ◽  
Michael Gunn ◽  
Peter Watson

<p>In this study, as capacity is ‘decision-specific’, we have assessed the capacity of men and women to make decisions about admission and treatment separately, using the Law Commission’s definition of incapacity. In this paper, we focus on a person’s capacity to consent to admission. Surprisingly, the courts in England and Wales have not directly explored the nature of the information relevant to a decision about admission to hospital. Admission without consent constitutes false imprisonment, which is both a civil tort, and a crime.</p>

2016 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-44
Author(s):  
Tom C. Russ ◽  
Alison Thomson ◽  
Donald Lyons

Aims and methodTo examine how capacity is recorded in practice and compare this with the statutory definition, medical reports accompanying a random 10% sample (183 applications; 360 reports) of guardianship applications granted in 2011–2012 were examined.ResultsClinicians did not explicitly use the statutory definition of capacity in 47.5% of reports. Over half of applications (56.4%) did not explicitly link the powers sought with the patient's vulnerabilities; such a link was less common in older adults (P = 0.0175).Clinical implicationsGuardianship orders can justify deprivation of liberty. Therefore it is important that such cases involve a thorough assessment of the person and that due process is followed, including adherence to the statutory definition of capacity. Practice could be improved by altering the paperwork required of medical practitioners, in line with mental health legislation. In addition, these findings should inform current legislation reform.


2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-160
Author(s):  
Donald Lyons

SummaryEngland and Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are all at different stages in developing their mental health legislation. All jurisdictions have encountered problems in interpretation and operation of the various acts. As an introduction to a series of articles to appear in Advances on mental health and incapacity law, this editorial offers a commentary on some of the critical issues and suggests some key principles that everyone should follow in order to provide care and treatment that accords with best legal and ethical practice.


2009 ◽  
Vol 24 (S1) ◽  
pp. 1-1
Author(s):  
D. Jolley ◽  
R. Heun

After eight years of tortured negotiations between government, professional psychiatrists and lay pressure groups, England and Wales will begin to use new Mental Health Legislation November 2008. This will not be a new Mental Health Act, but a substantial modification of the 1983 act. There are nine key changes:1.A single definition of mental disorder: ‘any disorder of mind or brain’.2.Criteria for compulsion: ‘appropriate medical treatment’ test.3.Age-appropriate services: special arrangements for under 18 years.4.Professional roles: approved clinicians and responsible clinicians (non-medical).5.Nearest relative: recognises Civil Partnerships, allows displacement.6.Supervised Community Treatment Orders.7.Mental health Review Tribunal: unified.8.Advocacy: Independent Mental Health Advocates.9.ECT: new safeguards.The Code of Practice identifies five key principles:1.Purpose - to minimise adverse effects of Mental Disorder.2.Least Restriction.3.Respect - diverse needs, values and circumstances.4.Participation - involving patient in planning, developing and reviewing treatment and care.5.Effectiveness, efficiency and equity - optimal use of resources.Earlier drafts had been described as: ‘little more than a Public Oder Bill dressed up as Mental Health legislation’; ‘ethically unworkable and practically unworkable’. Much of the dissent related to suggestions that people with Personality Disorder behaving in a dangerous or antisocial way should be subject to compulsory detention. Fears included breach of liberties and Human Rights and transformation of Mental Health Services disadvantaging people with major mental illnesses.


2007 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 3
Author(s):  
Lord Patel Of Bradford ◽  
Chris Heginbotham

<p>England now has revised mental health legislation following the passage of a mental health Bill through both Houses of Parliament following protracted discussions over seven years. The Mental Health Bill 2006, amending the Mental Health Act 1983, eventually received Royal Assent on 19 July 2007. There is much that could be said about the new Act, which makes a number of important changes to the present legislation. These changes include a new single definition of mental disorder; the abolition of the so-called ‘treatability test’; and the extension of compulsion into the community through a supervised community treatment order.</p>


2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffan Davies

Reform of mental health legislation has been under consideration for several years in England and Wales (Department of Health, 2000a), where the Mental Health Act 1983 is in force, and in Scotland (Millan Committee Secretariat, 2001), which is governed by the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is also under review, although the findings have yet to be published.


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.


2017 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 261-269 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Cronin ◽  
P. Gouda ◽  
C. McDonald ◽  
B. Hallahan

ObjectivesTo describe similarities and differences in mental health legislation between five jurisdictions: the Republic of Ireland, England and Wales, Scotland, Ontario (Canada), and Victoria (Australia).MethodsAn in-depth examination was undertaken focussing on the process of involuntary admission, review of Admission Orders and the legal processes in relation to treatment in the absence of patient consent in each of the five jurisdictions of interest.ResultsAll jurisdictions permit the detention of a patient if they have a mental disorder although the definition of mental disorder varies between jurisdictions. Several additional differences exist between the five jurisdictions, including the duration of admission prior to independent review of involuntary detention and the role of supported decision making.ConclusionsAcross the five jurisdictions examined, largely similar procedures for admission, detention and treatment of involuntary patients are employed, reflecting adherence with international standards and incorporation of human rights-based principles. Differences exist in relation to the criteria to define mental disorder, the occurrence of automatic review hearings in a timely fashion after a patient is involuntarily admitted and the role for supported decision making under mental health legislation.


1985 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 259-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
B.A. Martin ◽  
K.D. Cheung

The rationale for and history of civil commitment legislation in Ontario are reviewed The civil commitment rate in Ontario from 1926 to 1980 for provincial psychiatric hospitals, and from 1974 to 1980 for all psychiatric inpatient facilities was analyzed to detect variation in the rate over time and with relevant legislation. The findings indicate that mental health legislation has had little effect on commitment practices in Ontario. In addition, the variation in the commitment rate over the period reviewed cannot be ascribed to inconsistent application by physicians. The other variables affecting the rate are discussed in this context. The need for more descriptive studies of the major determinants of the commitment rate is emphasized.


2020 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 217-226
Author(s):  
Ian Cummins

Purpose This paper aims to examine reform of mental health legislation in England and Wales. It covers the period from the introduction of the 1983 MHA to the proposed reforms outlined in the Wessley Review that was published in December 2018. Design/methodology/approach This is a literature-based project. Findings Reform of the mental health legislation reflects two potentially conflicting strands. One is the state’s power to incarcerate the “mad”, and the other is the move to protect the civil rights of those who are subject to such legislation. The failures to development adequately funded community-based mental health services and a series of inquiries in the 1990s led to the introduction of Community Treatment Orders in the 2007 reform of the MHA. Research limitations/implications The development of mental health policy has seen a shift towards more coercive approaches in mental health. Practical implications The successful reform of the MHA can only be accomplished alongside investment in community mental health services. Originality/value The paper highlights the tensions between the factors that contribute to mental health legislation reform.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document