Law Society, 'Mental Health Act 1983 Independent Review: Call for Evidence: Law Society response' (22/1/18): Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
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. | {{Resource | ||
|Title=Mental Health Act 1983 Independent Review: Call for Evidence: Law Society response | |||
==Introduction== | |Author=Law Society | ||
|Date=2018/01/22 | |||
|URL=http://www.lawsociety.org.uk/policy-campaigns/consultation-responses/independent-review-of-the-mental-health-act-1983-law-society-response/ | |||
|Type=Document | |||
|Sentence=Wessely review response | |||
|Abstract=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. | |||
|Detail===Introduction== | |||
The Law Society's page containing the link to the PDF states: | The Law Society's page containing the link to the PDF states: | ||
| Line 18: | Line 24: | ||
==See also== | ==See also== | ||
*[[Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 by Simon Wessely (2018)]] | *[[Independent Review of the Mental Health Act 1983 by Simon Wessely (2018)]] | ||
|Saved=Yes | |||
= | |News=No | ||
|RSS pubdate=2021-4-10 05:58:03 PM | |||
}} | |||
Revision as of 17:58, 10 April 2021
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 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.
See also
Download: Link
Type: Document🔍
Title: Mental Health Act 1983 Independent Review: Call for Evidence: Law Society response
Author: Law Society🔍
Date: 22/1/18🔍
What links here: