Abstract
<p>In its final report the Expert Committee on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson proposed a new Mental Disorder Tribunal. This tribunal would have fundamentally different functions, composition, procedure and powers to the present Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs). The Committee’s objective was not merely to repair the failings of the present MHRT system but to replace it with a new structure promoting the principles of patient autonomy and non-discrimination. Reading the Committee report and the Government’s Green Paper proposals in response together it soon becomes clear that the Government has rejected the recommendation that the new mental health law should be based on principles of autonomy and nondiscrimination. In their place the Green Paper puts “safety” and “risk”. While it will incorporate safeguards to ensure compliance with the Human Rights Act 1998, the “dual aims” of the new Mental Health Act are to be to ensure the health and safety of patients and safety of the public. Whereas the Committee saw the new tribunal as an active guarantor and promoter of individual rights the Green Paper recasts it as a body preoccupied with risk and safety, stating as a fundamental “principle” that: “Issues relating to the safety of the individual patient and of the public are of key importance in determining the question of whether compulsory powers should be imposed”</p>
Highlights
In its final report the Expert Committee on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson[1] proposed a new Mental Disorder Tribunal
Reading the Committee report and the Government’s Green Paper proposals in response[3] together it soon becomes clear that the Government has rejected the recommendation that the a new mental health law should be based on principles of autonomy and nondiscrimination[4]
Whereas the Committee saw the new tribunal as an active guarantor and promoter of individual rights the Green Paper recasts it as a body preoccupied with risk and safety, stating as a fundamental “principle” that: “Issues relating to the safety of the individual patient and of the public are of key importance in determining the question of whether compulsory powers should be imposed”[6]
Summary
In its final report the Expert Committee on reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson[1] proposed a new Mental Disorder Tribunal. This tribunal would have fundamentally different functions, composition, procedure and powers to the present Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs). Reading the Committee report and the Government’s Green Paper proposals in response[3] together it soon becomes clear that the Government has rejected the recommendation that the a new mental health law should be based on principles of autonomy and nondiscrimination[4]. Whereas the Committee saw the new tribunal as an active guarantor and promoter of individual rights the Green Paper recasts it as a body preoccupied with risk and safety, stating as a fundamental “principle” that: “Issues relating to the safety of the individual patient and of the public are of key importance in determining the question of whether compulsory powers should be imposed”[6]
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
More From: International Journal of Mental Health and Capacity Law
Disclaimer: 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.