Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T15:54:52.381Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

[No Title]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Andrew Al-Adwani*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychiatry, Scunthorpe General Hospital, Cliff Gardens, Scunthorpe, North Lincolnshire DN15 7BH
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2000

Sir: I think Professor Burns (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 1999, 23, 647-648) is quite right to point out that most psychiatrists can think of ‘a handful’ of patients who would truly benefit from a Community Treatment Order (CTO). The criticism though that Moncrieff & Smyth are posing the wrong question (Psychiatric Bulletin, November 1999, 23, 644-646) “How can psychiatry control antisocial behaviour?” is slightly unfair. The genesis of the currently proposed reforms can be traced back to Frank Dobson's widely publicised comments on the Michael Stone case, that community care had failed because psychiatrists had not been using their power to treat people in the community. Of course psychiatry possessed no such power at the time of Mr Dobson's ill-informed comments, but Mr Dobson never retracted this statement and the government has gone on to propose CTOs. College caveats aside, it is, therefore, correct to view the CTO as the Government's attempt to hold psychiatrists accountable for the behaviour of dangerous people who have had contact with psychiatric services.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.