Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T08:03:50.948Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Concerns over reform of the Mental Health Act

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

F. Iqbal*
Affiliation:
Drugs North West, Mental Health Services of Salford, Bury New Road, Prestwick M25 3BL
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 The Royal College of Psychiatrists 

Szmukler & Holloway (Reference Szmukler and Holloway2000) put forward some plausible arguments in favour of incapacity as a key point in deciding when to administer treatment on an involuntary basis. However, there is the problem of how to assess the capacity of the individual in question.

Guidelines regarding capacity of individuals already exist (Department of Health & Welsh Office, 1999). Assessing capacity, however, remains a subjective process and any decision regarding capacity will depend on the assessor. Incapacity in such circumstances could then simply amount to disagreeing with the psychiatrist (Reference SayceSayce, 1998). If such an Act were to replace current legislation, it would be important to avoid this pitfall. This can only be assured by taking into account the views of all concerned parties - professionals, clients and the public. Whatever changes are made, it will be important to avoid excluding individuals lacking capacity who would benefit from compulsory treatment, in the name of individual liberty; or including individuals for compulsory treatment whose views regarding treatment even remotely differ from the widely held beliefs of the profession, in spite of having the capacity to decide (Reference FulfordFulford, 1998).

The recent preoccupation of society and the psychiatric services with dangerous individuals with mental illness has become instrumental in demands for changes in the mental health legislation. However, to assume as Szmukler & Holloway do that the protection of society is the prime aim of involuntary treatment is ill-founded. They cite an increase in compulsory admissions as evidence. However, during this period other factors, such as targets to reduce rates of suicides and increasing charges of negligence against psychiatrists owing to widely reported cases of suicide and homicides, have also played their role in increasing detention of individuals under the Mental Health Act.

In the current environment there is a need for a broader and more open discussion involving professionals, clients and the public alike. Only by educating the public can we as professionals fulfil our duty in the shaping of a just and more humane policy towards people suffering from mental illness.

References

Department of Health & Welsh Office (1999) Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice. London: Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Fulford, K. M. (1998) Invited commentaries on: Mental health legislation is now a harmful anachronism. Psychiatric Bulletin, 22, 666668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sayce, L. (1998) Invited commentaries on: Mental health legislation is now a harmful anachronism. Psychiatric Bulletin, 22, 669670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmukler, G. & Holloway, F. (2000) Reform of the Mental Health Act. Health or Safety? British Journal of Psychiatry, 177, 196200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.