Here’s a gem:
patients should never be treated under compulsion unless their decision making was impaired and the treatment was of therapeutic benefit.
So someone is being assessed for a mental health problem. As soon as you look at someone and you are aware that they may have a problem, you start to read things into their behaviour which may not actually exist. Just because someone says “He’s mad” is no reason to believe them is it ? Look again at that statement – all it takes is a professional to say “Yeah .. he’s not thinking straight and I’m sure <insert phrase> will help” and that person is locked up. What precisely is an impaired decision ? getting a tattoo ? Having ‘one for the road’ ? Wanting to die ? Wanting to kill ? Remember this is not a 2+2 situation – it is an interpretation by someone of another. This law will have huge ramifications and it needs to be written to support the professional AND to protect the person who is being scrutinised. Mental Health treatment has one doorway – IN. There must be a very compelling reason to push someone through that door. Right now this is just a ‘sweep them in, lock them up’ law. The way this is worded right now is terrible – and compulsive treatment ? You MUST have the tablets, you MUST have the injection, you MUST do whatever you are told – and just because someone came to you one night when things could have been a bit rough ? Bear in mind as well that the only person who can determine the therapeutic benefit of any treatment of any sort is the person on the receiving end. So the medics say it’s good and the patient disagrees. The medics say that the patient must still be mad because they can’t see the positive side, so let’s prescribe more treatment. This is a lose-lose no matter which way you want to look at it.
Rethink | Sainsbury Centre