Abstract
Prior to the 1983 Mental Health Act (MHA), Mental Health Tribunals (MHRTs) did not have the power to order delayed discharge of a patient appealing against a section, although there was evidence that tribunals used the power of adjournment to allow time for follow-up to be arranged. This power was used more often with patients in special hospitals where the option of remaining on an informal basis did not exist. Hepworth and others advocated giving tribunals the power of delayed discharge. This was supported by the White Paper (1978) and subsequently became part of the 1983 MHA, together with some increase in the responsibility of the local authorities to provide after care for Section 3 and 37 patients. But the new Act also allowed the appeal of patients on Section 2, while giving no responsibility to the local authority for their after-care. It was difficult to see how delayed discharge could be implemented as an after-care safeguard for Section 2 patients who would often have only two weeks or so of their Section to run in any case. With this in mind, I studied all cases appearing before the MHRT in a general psychiatric hospital in the two years following the new Act.
Highlights
This power was used more often with patients in special hospitals where the option of remaining on an informal basis did not exist.1'2 Hepworth3 and others advocated giving tribunals the power of delayed discharge
The case notes of all patients appearing before the MHRT were studied and the following were noted: age; sex; section of Mental Health Act (MHA); case note diagnosis; recommendation of the Responsible Medical Officer (RMO); recommendation of the approved social worker (ASW); result of the tribunal, and follow up arrangements
The figures for discharge by MHRT's tend to be higher in the local sample, it should be noted that the local numbers are small and the difference does not reach statistical significance, (Chi Square Test P> 0.050)
Summary
This power was used more often with patients in special hospitals where the option of remaining on an informal basis did not exist.1'2 Hepworth3 and others advocated giving tribunals the power of delayed discharge. The case notes of all patients appearing before the MHRT were studied and the following were noted: age; sex; section of MHA; case note diagnosis; recommendation of the Responsible Medical Officer (RMO); recommendation of the approved social worker (ASW); result of the tribunal, and follow up arrangements.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
