Government again under fire over plans to change mental health law

March 29, 2005
by Angela Hussain

The government has again come under fierce criticism over its plans to change mental health law.

A joint parliamentary committee has warned the government's planned legislation would erode civil liberties by imposing compulsory treatment on people who had done no wrong and would not benefit from it.

Psychiatrists are among those who have welcomed the raft of recommendations by the committee on how to change radically the draft mental health bill.

Dr Zigmond, vice-president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, pointed out that the committee's recommendations included that patients with mental health problems be treated under a same legal framework as patients diagnosed with physical illnesses.

Dr Zigmond said: "In particular, they will not [if the committee's recommendations were implemented] be forced to have treatment if they are fully capable of making decisions for themselves, and they will only be subject to a mental health order if this will improve their health care," said Dr Zigmond.

The committee said the draft bill placed too great an emphasis on protecting the public from a small minority of dangerous people with a mental health diagnosis at the expense of the civil rights of the majority who pose no risk to others.

The MPs and peers said the bill, which includes powers equivalent to an antisocial behaviour order - enforcing treatment on those who might be a "nuisance", but do not pose any significant risk to the public - could be used as a means of social control.

The committee chairman, Lord Carlile of Berriew, said: "This is an important reminder to the government that the bill is fundamentally flawed.

"It is too heavily focused on compulsion and currently there are neither the financial resources nor the workforce to implement it.

"At present, the draft bill is too focused on addressing public misconception about violence and mental illness and does not do enough to protect patients' rights."

Paul Farmer, the chairman of the Mental Health Alliance, which represents 60 mental health groups, including the Royal College of Psychiatrists and British Psychological Society, said the government should withdraw the current bill and draw up a new version based on the committee's recommendations.

"The committee has clearly listened to service users, carers, professionals and charities," he said.

Although Health Minister Rosie Winterton said the government would consider the committee's findings she insisted there was a need to strengthen the law to better protect the public.

In addition, the government has used two high profile murders by people diagnosed with a mental illness to help justify its emphasise on public protection.

Peter Bryan, 35, walked out of a psychiatric ward then killed last year his friend Brian Cherry, 43, before frying and eating part of his brain.

Relatives of Bryan and his victims condemned the mental health system for releasing him into community care from the high-security Rampton psychiatric hospital, where he was detained after beating a shop assistant to death with a hammer.

Sent to Broadmoor psychiatric hospital while awaiting trial for killing Mr Cherry, he killed another psychiatric patient after he was placed on a medium-risk ward.

But Paul Farmer, chairman of the Mental Health Alliance, said it would be wrong to use the "appalling case" to push for more draconian mental health laws before an inquiry into the killings was concluded.

He said: "Before an inquiry is complete, we must not make unjust assumptions that could put the half a million British people with severe mental illnesses like schizophrenia at risk of being deprived of their liberty or being excluded from the rest of society on the basis of a small number of tragic cases."

Mr Farmer said the findings of previous inquiries into homicides by psychiatric patients suggested that more resources were needed for mental health services rather than "a draconian new law".

He said: "Laws alone cannot ever take all risk out of the system.

"Instead we need a properly resourced mental health care system that listens to patients and carers when they ask for help; that offers effective care and support when it is needed; and that can make the best risk assessments possible."

Bryan's court case came just weeks after John Barrett, diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, admitted stabbing cyclist Denis Finnegan to death as he cycled through Richmond park in south-west London.

However, Andy Bell, of the Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health, said we should be cautious about blaming care in the community.

"Between 30 and 50 killings each year out of 800 are by people who are in contact with mental health services.

"That has remained constant for years - before and after care in the community came in."

The cases of Bryan and Barrett are now the subject of several Department of Health inquiries.

Read for yourself:
The Joint Parliamentary Committee's report on the draft mental health bill
The government's draft mental health bill (pdf)

See also:
Feb 7, 2005:Government should rip up draft mental health bill plans, doctors group urges - British Medical Association tells parliamentary committee the bill is "unethical, and unworkable"
Jan 24, 2005: Members of expert group to advise government on planned mental health law - hand-picked members to help develop code of practice on draft mental health bill
Nov 16, 2004: Draft mental health bill risks breaching rights of patients and would be unworkable - parliamentary committee hears
Sept 9, 2004: Government publishes revised draft mental health bill - but it is greeted with universal condemnation from bodies representing mental health professionals and service users..

Add your comments
What do you think? Email your comments on the above
article to the editor using the form below. Selected comments will be displayed.

© 2001-7  Psychminded Limited. All rights reserved