This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jan/28/mental-health-act-reform-proposals
The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Mental Health Act reform proposals | Mental Health Act reform proposals |
| (about 4 hours later) | |
| Letters | Letters |
| Sun 28 Jan 2018 18.04 GMT | Sun 28 Jan 2018 18.04 GMT |
| Last modified on Sun 28 Jan 2018 22.00 GMT | |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| View more sharing options | View more sharing options |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Close | Close |
| In his letter (26 January), Professor Tom Burns challenges the information we gave the Guardian (Lawyers seek end to forced treatment of psychiatric inpatients, 24 January). We’re grateful to him for his points and want to clarify that only patients detained by order of the magistrates or crown courts under the Mental Health Act will have to wait six months before appealing to a tribunal. The point we make in our evidence to the independent review is that once a person is detained for treatment under section 3 of the act, the order detaining him or her lasts up to six months – though it can be lifted by the hospital or the tribunal and, in some cases, the “nearest relative”. It is unusual for a patient to stay in hospital for six months: that’s why we believe that period is too long – it is demoralising and distressing, and doesn’t reflect reality in the vast majority of cases. Therefore in our evidence we suggest that an initial limit of three months is considered. | In his letter (26 January), Professor Tom Burns challenges the information we gave the Guardian (Lawyers seek end to forced treatment of psychiatric inpatients, 24 January). We’re grateful to him for his points and want to clarify that only patients detained by order of the magistrates or crown courts under the Mental Health Act will have to wait six months before appealing to a tribunal. The point we make in our evidence to the independent review is that once a person is detained for treatment under section 3 of the act, the order detaining him or her lasts up to six months – though it can be lifted by the hospital or the tribunal and, in some cases, the “nearest relative”. It is unusual for a patient to stay in hospital for six months: that’s why we believe that period is too long – it is demoralising and distressing, and doesn’t reflect reality in the vast majority of cases. Therefore in our evidence we suggest that an initial limit of three months is considered. |
| Second, in relation to the point on community treatment orders, health professionals in London boroughs have reported to some of our members that payments are offered to patients for attending appointments where depot injections – a slow-release form of medication – may be administered, rather than for taking the medicine itself. This is reflected in our response, where we say we understand “that London hospitals go so far as to offer financial rewards to patients who attend appointments for depot injections”.Christina BlacklawsVice-president, Law Society of England and Wales | Second, in relation to the point on community treatment orders, health professionals in London boroughs have reported to some of our members that payments are offered to patients for attending appointments where depot injections – a slow-release form of medication – may be administered, rather than for taking the medicine itself. This is reflected in our response, where we say we understand “that London hospitals go so far as to offer financial rewards to patients who attend appointments for depot injections”.Christina BlacklawsVice-president, Law Society of England and Wales |
| • Sally Cheseldine (Letters, 26 January) suggests that reforms of English mental health law might follow Scotland in providing for short-term 28-day detention, and rights of appeal against short and long-term detention, supported by legal aid. In fact, all these provisions already exist under England’s Mental Health Act 1983 (amended 2007) and Legal Aid Agency rules; Wales has equivalent provision. There is a danger that the government’s review of mental health law will rapidly become a distraction from the more pressing problem of underresourcing of mental health services.Nick GouldEmeritus professor of social work, University of Bath | • Sally Cheseldine (Letters, 26 January) suggests that reforms of English mental health law might follow Scotland in providing for short-term 28-day detention, and rights of appeal against short and long-term detention, supported by legal aid. In fact, all these provisions already exist under England’s Mental Health Act 1983 (amended 2007) and Legal Aid Agency rules; Wales has equivalent provision. There is a danger that the government’s review of mental health law will rapidly become a distraction from the more pressing problem of underresourcing of mental health services.Nick GouldEmeritus professor of social work, University of Bath |
| Tom Burns is right in his response to the Law Society request for a review of the Mental Health Act. The act is largely fit for purpose. The problems are in the lack of well-thought-out and properly resourced services. The lack of investment in systematic workforce planning, education and training and service development is, or at least should be, a cause of acute concern and no little embarrassment. | Tom Burns is right in his response to the Law Society request for a review of the Mental Health Act. The act is largely fit for purpose. The problems are in the lack of well-thought-out and properly resourced services. The lack of investment in systematic workforce planning, education and training and service development is, or at least should be, a cause of acute concern and no little embarrassment. |
| If there is anyone left in the government with any interest in mental health they should hang their head in shame.Ian BaguleyProfessor emeritus of mental health, University of Lincoln | If there is anyone left in the government with any interest in mental health they should hang their head in shame.Ian BaguleyProfessor emeritus of mental health, University of Lincoln |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
| Mental health | Mental health |
| Health | Health |
| Wales | Wales |
| London | London |
| letters | letters |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |