This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/uk_politics/6374547.stm

The article has changed 11 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 3 Version 4
Mental health law plan challenged Mental health law plan challenged
(about 3 hours later)
Ministers face defeat in the House of Lords over plans to allow mentally ill people to be detained even if doing so would not benefit their condition. Ministers are facing defeat in the House of Lords over plans to allow mentally ill people to be detained even if this does not help their condition.
The Mental Health Bill would mean people with severe personality disorders could be confined if judged to be a threat to themselves or others.The Mental Health Bill would mean people with severe personality disorders could be confined if judged to be a threat to themselves or others.
The bill would also allow compulsory treatment in the community.The bill would also allow compulsory treatment in the community.
Critics argue the measures are too draconian and could lead to people not coming forward for treatment.Critics argue the measures are too draconian and could lead to people not coming forward for treatment.
'Highly invasive'
Conservative, Lib Dem and non-aligned peers have jointly tabled a series of amendments to the plans, so are expected to be able to defeat the government.Conservative, Lib Dem and non-aligned peers have jointly tabled a series of amendments to the plans, so are expected to be able to defeat the government.
At the opening of the debate Conservative Earl Howe told peers: "It [the bill] allows individuals who have committed no crime to be detained and committed under compulsion and subjected to treatments that are highly invasive."
He added that it was essential to "set the parameters of acceptable behaviour on the part of health professionals".
Patients who were coerced felt "dreadful trauma and deep humiliation", Earl Howe said.
Lib Dem Baroness Barker said a "clear statement of principles" on how the law and mental health workers' code of practice worked together was needed, to avoid "continued confusion".
The slimmed-down Mental Health Bill is the latest in a series of attempts by the government since 1998 to change the laws.The slimmed-down Mental Health Bill is the latest in a series of attempts by the government since 1998 to change the laws.
Community treatment
At the moment people cannot be detained against their will - even if they are a danger to themselves or others - if that detention and treatment could not be shown to benefit their condition.At the moment people cannot be detained against their will - even if they are a danger to themselves or others - if that detention and treatment could not be shown to benefit their condition.
Public protection
The government wants to change those rules so people could be detained and treated if medical treatment, which is appropriate to the patient's mental disorder "and all other circumstances of their case", is available.The government wants to change those rules so people could be detained and treated if medical treatment, which is appropriate to the patient's mental disorder "and all other circumstances of their case", is available.
Also controversial is the plan to bring in supervised community treatment, which aims to ensure patients comply with their treatment once they are discharged from hospital.Also controversial is the plan to bring in supervised community treatment, which aims to ensure patients comply with their treatment once they are discharged from hospital.
This is a mental health bill, not a mental detention bill Lord Carlile
Health Minister Lord Warner has said the aim of the bill is to protect the public and patients from harm.Health Minister Lord Warner has said the aim of the bill is to protect the public and patients from harm.
Michael Stone's 1998 conviction for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell first prompted the government to propose new laws. Stone was regarded as a dangerous psychopath but, because his condition was untreatable, he could not be held under mental health powers.Michael Stone's 1998 conviction for the murders of Lin and Megan Russell first prompted the government to propose new laws. Stone was regarded as a dangerous psychopath but, because his condition was untreatable, he could not be held under mental health powers.
The bill comes after previous attempts to change the existing Mental Health Act 1983 were abandoned in the face of opposition from mental health campaigners and some doctors.The bill comes after previous attempts to change the existing Mental Health Act 1983 were abandoned in the face of opposition from mental health campaigners and some doctors.
They object, among other issues, to the bill being too occupied with public safety rather than the needs of the people who might require help.They object, among other issues, to the bill being too occupied with public safety rather than the needs of the people who might require help.
'Doctors as jailers'
The peers say they do not want the bill dropped, but want their amendments accepted by the government.The peers say they do not want the bill dropped, but want their amendments accepted by the government.
Crossbench peer Baroness Meacher said the bill was "in a sense, treating doctors as jailers" if there was no requirement for treatment to have any benefit.
Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlile said there were important ethical considerations.
"Is it ethical for a doctor to detain a person in a hospital when there are no benefits? No.
"If the government wanted to detain people it did not like then it could introduce a bill to do so, but it should not wrap it up in a health bill."
He added: "This is a mental health bill, not a mental detention bill."
Conservative peer Earl Howe said the bill created "too wide a gateway to compulsory treatment".
"This bill, if it isn't careful, will sweep up a lot of people who are not dangerous to anyone."
The changes would affect an estimated 14,000 of the 600,000 people who use mental health services each year.The changes would affect an estimated 14,000 of the 600,000 people who use mental health services each year.