Mental Health Bill human rights examined

The Bill proposes changing the test for 'treatment without consent' from one where the treatment must be shown to "alleviate or prevent deterioration" in the patient's condition, to a new test where it must be shown that it is "appropriate" for the treatment to be given. The Committee find that there appears to be no EU Human Rights Convention obstacle to changing the test as a condition of compulsory detention, although the Committee is mindful that the treatment available should be likely to be of therapeutic benefit to the patient.

Concerns are raised concerning:

• Initial detention - that 'renewal of detention' would be authorised by a 'responsible clinician', who need not be a doctor, and that the decision would lack scrutiny by any higher authority other than the Mental Health Review Tribunal
• Forcible feeding - that forcible feeding should be subject to the same safeguards as apply to other invasive forms of treatment
• Treatment of mentally incapacitated patients - the Committee questions whether the detailed and complex proposals to amend the 'Mental Capacity Act' (Elizabeth II - Chapter 9) will be readily understood by proprietors of residential care homes.

Two key omissions from the Bill are also highlighted:

• There is no provision made for effective supervision and review of decisions to give treatment without consent for mental disorder to patients deprived of their liberty under mental capacity legislation, where the treatment involves psychotropic medication or other significant interferences with physical integrity
• There is no provision made for sufficient safeguards to ensure that seclusion is used only when strictly necessary and that individuals subject to it should have access to review at intervals so that it is brought to an end when no longer necessary.

Found this story interesting?
Spread the news by clicking below to add it to your bookmarking service:

• Del.icio.us
• Digg this
• Reddit!