scholarly journals Electroconvulsive therapy, capacity and the law in Ireland

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ross Dunne ◽  
Adam Kavanagh ◽  
Declan M McLoughlin

AbstractThe Mental Health Act (MHA) 2001 has major implications for treating patients with electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), especially as those referred for treatment are among the most severely ill and often lose capacity. Under the MHA 2001, a person may only be treated without consent if they are an involuntary patient. However, there is no provision in the Act for treating voluntary inpatients whose mental state has deteriorated but who do not seek to leave hospital. Such people may lack capacity to make treatment decisions but be passively compliant.The Wards of Court system is currently the only legal recourse but has been criticised by the Law Reform Commission and is unwieldy. Further legislation governing treatment of people lacking capacity to consent to ECT or withhold consent is required to protect and advance treatment of all concerned.

2019 ◽  
Vol 27 (5) ◽  
pp. 428-434 ◽  
Author(s):  
Russ Scott ◽  
Steve Prowacki

Objective: To critically examine a recent decision of the Victorian Supreme Court that found that the Mental Health Tribunal and the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal erred in the application of the capacity test in the Mental Health Act 2014 (Vic) and that compulsory electroconvulsive therapy would infringe upon the human rights of two patients who had no insight into their chronic schizophrenia. Conclusions: After considering the concepts of insight and capacity to consent to treatment, the paper concludes that the decision in NJE and PBU v Mental Health Tribunal [2018] VSC 564 is problematic clinically.


2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Cresswell

This article provides a critical viewpoint on Loughran’s recent work in Medicine, Science and the Law on the causes of the rise in the police’s use of section 136 (s136) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Loughran M. Detention under section 136: why is it increasing? Med Sci Law 2018; 58: 268–274). The rate of this rise seems significant: by 2014, it was five times more likely that a person in England would be detained in a hospital under s136 than it was in 2000, and the trend has continued to the present day. This viewpoint considers the significance of the s136 rise from the theoretical perspective of causal analysis.


2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (02) ◽  
pp. 54-57
Author(s):  
Sean Whyte ◽  
Clive Meux

Aims and Method To estimate specific time and resource implications for professionals, if proposed changes to the Mental Health Act 1983 (England & Wales) in the Government's white paper were to be implemented unchanged. An audit of time spent on current procedures was extrapolated. Results The amount of time required to comply with the Act will rise substantially (by 27% overall). Social workers and independent doctors will spend 30% and 207% more time respectively, complying with the Act, but psychiatrists providing clinical care to forensic patients should be largely unaffected. Clinical Implications If the Government presses ahead with its plans for mental health law reform as currently proposed, extra resources will be required to provide additional social work and independent medical time – or other services for patients will suffer.


Author(s):  
Maura McCallion ◽  
Ursula O'Hare

<p>When the Bamford Review of Mental Health and Learning Disability completed its work in the autumn of 2007, it drew to a close an extensive consultation and analysis of mental health and learning disability services and the law in Northern Ireland. Its last report on A Comprehensive Legislative Framework made<br />a compelling case for a major overhaul of the law that the Review team itself described as ‘quite radical’. The Review identified the case for reform in the need to ensure that mental health law conforms to the requirements of human rights law, reflects changes to professional practice, reflects the needs of service<br />users and their carers, and keeps pace with reform elsewhere in the UK. Alone of all the jurisdictions in the UK, Northern Ireland has been operating largely in a legislative vacuum in relation to mental capacity law. The Review’s proposals for reform therefore extended to reform of mental health law and the introduction of mental capacity law.</p><p>In the autumn of 2008 the NI Executive published its response to the Bamford Review indicating that it intended to develop the law sequentially: reform of the Mental Health (NI) Order 1986 by 2011 followed by the introduction of mental capacity law in 2014. Responses to the Executive’s consultation resulted in<br />the Department of Health Social Services and Public Safety (DHSSPS) revising its approach and it signalled its intention to bring forward mental capacity and mental health legislation together. This reated a unique opportunity in Northern Ireland for fusion of incapacity and mental health legislation. A further consultation paper was issued in January 2009, setting out the key approaches to the content<br />of two bills. However as a result of the consultation, the Health Minister Michael McGimpsey announced in September 2009 that there would be a single bill with an overall principle of autonomy. His press statement noted: “ A strong body of opinion, particularly from professional groups and lead voluntary organisations, which considered that separate mental health legislation continues to be stigmatising and recommended that mental capacity and mental health provisions should instead be encompassed into a single piece of legislation”</p><p>This short paper provides an overview of the current direction of travel on law reform in Northern Ireland. It comments on the policy climate and arguments for a fusion of mental capacity and mental health legislation. It also highlights some of the key policy issues that will need to be further explored as the Department develops its law reform proposals and concludes with some hopes and fears for the new legislation.</p>


1993 ◽  
Vol 17 (8) ◽  
pp. 483-483

The Commission welcomes the opportunity to comment on Dr Oyebode's paper. As a former medical member of the Commission, Dr Oyebode can write with authority on the frustrations felt by many Commissioners when carrying out their statutory obligations to ensure that the requirements of Section 58 of the Act are being met. His paper is particularly opportune considering the recent publication by the Law Commission of its consultation paper No. 129 (Law Commission, 1993).


2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Anjum Bashir ◽  
Sheila Tinto

As Professor Eastman (2000) has noted: the law is fond of ‘using’ psychiatry for its own ends at times, but the Mental Health Act 1983 is an example of psychiatrists using the law as a tool of public policy. This makes their education in and interpretation of it all the more vital. The MRCPsych part II module ‘Ethics and the Law’ requires candidates to demonstrate knowledge of relevant mental health and human rights legislation, and to illustrate the appropriate application of such information (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001). We submit a masked case study that in practice seems to us a misinterpretation of the Act.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document