Setback for mental health bill

March 1, 2006
by Mike George

The government's controversial mental health bill has suffered one of its biggest setbacks after 36 backbench Labour MPs signed an early day motion against the bill.

Such backbench opposition to the bill could force a House of Commons defeat for the government.

Seventy seven MPs, including the 36 Labour backbenchers, have, in total, signed the motion condemning the bill which
critics argue will increase powers to compulsory detain people under mental health law.

Ministers argue the bill is a suitable balance between patient rights and public safety.

The Labour signatories would be sufficient to overturn the government’s 65-strong majority if all the signatures were turned into votes.

The Tory shadow health and children’s minister Tim Loughton claimed last month that the government was unlikely to introduce the bill this parliamentary session and that ministers were instead considering amending the mental health act of 1983..

However, anti-bill campaigners are now seeking a meeting with Department of Health officials to clarify the position.

Paul Farmer, chair of the Mental Health Alliance, a coalition campaigning against the bill, said: “It’s very encouraging that MPs are signing up to the early day motion, we’ve been doing a lot of work with parliamentarians. If the bill did get into parliament then it would be subject to extremely rigorous scrutiny.”

The motion was tabled by Diane Abbot, Labour MP for Hackney North, in December last year.

The motion states new mental health law based on the draft bill “will seriously restrict the rights, choices and well being of people with mental distress and force too many people into compulsory treatment”

Read for yourself:
The early day motion and a full list of MPs who signed the motion opposing the mental health bill

See also:
July 13, 2005: Ministers refuse to add "treatability" condition to draft mental health bill - fears that more people will be compulsory treated is fuelled by government response to parliamentary committee

.....

Wrong to think forcible medication protects the public

Comment from: Catherine Lowe, ex-service user, Stockport, Greater Manchester
Date: March 3, 2006

I am heartened to see there is healthy, cross-party opposition to one of the most regressive and pernicious pieces of legislation of this parliament. The government is rightfully being challenged for its failure to respond equitably to the concerns of the pre-legislative parliamentary scrutiny committee and the public who will be further damaged by this ill-considered bill.

I experienced the catastrophic effects of medication. The iatrogenic effects, to me, also concern the stigma implicit in the promotion of wrongful ideas that people with mental distress must be medicated against their will to protect the public. The claims for effectiveness of medication are grossly exaggerated.

The bill must not hoodwink the public into believing compulsory treatment and other proposals in the bill will resolve mental distress. For this it will be necessary to go back to the drawing board.

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