Law Society, 'Mental Health Act 1983 Independent Review: Call for Evidence: Law Society response' (22/1/18)

Wessely review response The Law Society's response notes that the MHA/MCA interface, and UNCRPD compatibility, need to be considered, and contains proposals under the following sub-headings: (a) Giving informal admission statutory force; (b) Period of detention under Section 3; (c) Treatment without consent under the MHA 1983; (d) Automatic referrals to the tribunal; (e) Statutory requirement to discharge where detention criteria are not met; (f) Managers Hearings for patients who lack capacity; (g) The need for an express requirement of tribunals to have regard to ECHR Rights; (h) Transfer of Prisoners to Hospital; (i) Inadequacy of tribunal powers in respect of transferred patients; (j) Community Treatment Orders; (k) Lack of access to aftercare for patients detained under section 2 and informal patients; (l) Learning Disabilities & Autism; (m) Under 18s; (n) Nearest Relative Rule; (o) Our views on mental health service provision.

Introduction

The Law Society's page containing the link to the PDF states:

The Law Society has responded to the government’s Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983.

The response contains high-level observations of what the Society considers to be the most serious problems with the Act, now over 30 years old.

These include:

Inadequate rights for patients to challenge their detention in the Mental Health Tribunal
Unjustifiable imposition of medical treatment on patients without their consent in the first three months of detention
A complete lack of safeguards for children in mental health detention
Inordinate delay in the treatment of prisoners with mental health problems
Confusion and conflict with the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

Law Society, 'Mental Health Act 1983 Independent Review: Call for Evidence: Law Society response' (22/1/18)

Introduction

See also