Section 48: an underused provision?

1992 ◽  
Vol 16 (2) ◽  
pp. 97-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Exworthy ◽  
Janet M. Parrott ◽  
Paul K. Bridges
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Secretary Of State

Section 48 of the Mental Health Act, 1983 (MHA) permits the Secretary of State to authorise the removal to hospital of an unsentenced prisoner who is ‘suffering from mental illness or severe mental impairment of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to be detained in a hospital for medical treatment and that he is in urgent need of such treatment’. (Mental Health Act, 1983). Its common usage in the past has been in transfers of unsentenced prisoners from prison to hospital.

Adolescents and Mental Disorder: Who Consents to Treatment?

1997 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Bridge
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Young People ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Mentally Ill ◽  
Young Person ◽  
Refusal Of Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Adolescent Autonomy

Although English law recognises that developing adolescents may acquire the capacity to make decisions about medical treatment themselves it does not address the problem of mentally disturbed or disordered adolescents. This article examines the nature of adolescent refusal of treatment and suggests that a line be drawn between three categories of adolescent disturbance—the competent young person who refuses treatment that an adult too may refuse, the rebellious teenager whose refusal is triggered by simple teenage angst, and the mentally ill teenager whose refusal is triggered by mental illness. It suggests that adolescent autonomy needs to be more fully understood and the Mental Health Act more readily used in treating young people.

scholarly journals The use of the Mental Health Act in learning disabilities

1996 ◽  
Vol 20 (10) ◽  
pp. 596-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yan Kon ◽  
Nick Bouras
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Learning Disabilities ◽  
Current Practice ◽  
The South ◽  
Violent Behaviour ◽  
Mental Impairment ◽  
Young Males ◽  
Mental Health Act

Psychiatrists in learning disabilities in the South-East Thames Region were asked to fill in questionnaires on the last five patients they had sectioned in an attempt to describe current practice in their usage of the Mental Health Act (1983). Clients tended to be sectioned under the category of mental impairment and were mainly young males with violent behaviour. Treatment of mental illness was less of a problem.

Does section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983 disempower patients with mental illness? Analysis of the case law

2017 ◽  
Vol 86 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bhanuka Senasinghe
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Psychiatric Patients ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Mental Illnesses ◽  
Legal Cases ◽  
Physical Conditions ◽  
Mental Health Act

In England and Wales, detained psychiatric inpatients are treated under section 63 of the Mental Health Act 1983. This paper critically analyses the relevant law and considers the arbitrary distinctions between consent for treatments for mental illnesses and physical conditions, which may disempower patients with mental illness. Section 63 states that (for detained psychiatric patients) consent for medical treatment for patients’ mental disorder is not required. The treating clinician responsible for a patient decides what this medical treatment entails. This article focuses on three main legal cases: B v Croydon Health Authority, Tameside and Glossop v CH and Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust v RC and considers whether s 63 disempowers patients with mental illnesses.

R v Westwood (Thomas): diminished responsibility and disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Mennim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

This is a commentary on R v Westwood (Thomas), where the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the judge had erred in assessing Westwood’s ‘retained responsibility’ as medium to high under the Sentencing Council Guideline for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Although the sentencing judge concluded that the offending was caused by Westwood’s anger, the Court of Appeal found the psychiatric evidence clearly indicated that the most significant factor was Westwood’s mental illness and that his anger at the time of the offence was a manifestation of his mental illness. Westwood’s responsibility was low, and it was appropriate to impose both a hospital and restriction order.  

scholarly journals Holistic Health: Does It Really Include Mental Health?

2006 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 2092-2099 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kimberly K. McClanahan ◽  
Marlene B. Huff ◽  
Hatim A. Omar
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Physical Health ◽  
The United States ◽  
Holistic Health ◽  
Public Perceptions ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mind And Body ◽  
Mental And Physical Health ◽  
The U.S

Holistic health, incorporating mind and body as equally important and unified components of health, is a concept utilized in some health care arenas in the United States (U.S.) over the past 30 years. However, in the U.S., mental health is not seen as conceptually integral to physical health and, thus, holistic health cannot be realized until the historical concept of mind-body dualism, continuing stigma regarding mental illness, lack of mental health parity in insurance, and inaccurate public perceptions regarding mental illness are adequately addressed and resolved. Until then, mental and physical health will continue to be viewed as disparate entities rather than parts of a unified whole. We conclude that the U.S. currently does not generally incorporate the tenets of holistic health in its view of the mental and physical health of its citizens, and provide some suggestions for changing that viewpoint.

The rise and fall of anti-psychiatry

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (12) ◽  
pp. 743-746 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mervat Nasser
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Psychiatric Practice ◽  
The Past ◽  
Health Institutions ◽  
Mental Health Institutions ◽  
The Impact

A review is made of the anti-psychiatric movement through its major protagonists, Lacan, Laing, Cooper and Szasz. The ideology was set to challenge the concept of mental illness and question the authority of the psychiatrist and the need for mental health institutions. The anti-psychiatric movement received a lot of attention in the 1970s but is now considered to be of the past and of likely interest to the psychiatric historian. However, the impact of the movement on current psychiatric practice requires further re-examination and appraisal.

Mental health services for single homeless people

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-11
Author(s):  
Philip Timms ◽  
Jenny Drife
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
Personality Disorder ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Substance Misuse ◽  
Homeless People ◽  
Psychiatric Services ◽  
Background Information ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Uk

SUMMARY Homelessness has long been associated with high rates of psychosis, alcohol and substance misuse, and personality disorder. However, psychiatric services in the UK have only recently engaged actively with homeless people. This article provides some background information about homelessness and mental illness and describes the elements of inclusion health and some of the models of service for homeless people that have been established over the past 30 years.

scholarly journals Definitions and criteria: the 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983

2010 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 161-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tim Branton ◽  
Guy Brookes
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Disorder ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Psychological Treatment ◽  
Basic Structure ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Sexual Deviancy ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
Mental Capacity Act

SummaryThis article deals with the provisions for the lawful detention and compulsory treatment of patients in England and Wales. The 2007 amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983 redefine ‘mental disorder’ and ‘medical treatment’ and remove the classifications required for longer-term detention, abolishing the so-called ‘treatability test’ and introducing a new appropriate-treatment test. ‘Learning disability’ is brought within the definition of mental disorder but only if ‘associated with abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct’. The exclusion for promiscuity, other immoral conduct or sexual deviancy is repealed; the exclusion for dependence on alcohol and drugs is retained. The revised definition of ‘medical treatment’ includes psychological treatment and removes the requirement that treatment is under medical supervision. The basic structure of the 1983 Act is retained. Use of the powers is discretionary. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 are imported into the decision-making framework through the wording of the Mental Health ActCode of Practice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document