scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983: the Green Paper

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 126-128 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. S. Zigmond
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Closing Date ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health

The profession awaits the Government's White Paper on a new Mental Health Act (MHA) with trepidation. At the time of writing, the closing date for consultation on the Green Paper (Department of Health, 1999a) has passed. None the less, discussion and lobbying must continue.

scholarly journals ‘Offenders, Deviants or Patients’ - Comments on Part Two of the White Paper

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
Herschel Prins
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Good Deal ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
The Past ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Government

<p align="LEFT">The Government White Paper Reforming the Mental Health Act follows closely on the heels of the Green Paper - Reform of the Mental Health Act, 1983 which derives from (but also departs from in many respects) the Report of the Expert Committee chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson. One could say, with some justification, that mental health professionals have been ‘deluged’ with paper in this area in the past year or two, so that trying to discern trends has become very difficult. In particular, the material in the White Paper is somewhat closely written and needs to be read with a good deal of care (or, so it seemed to me). To complicate matters further, offender-patients are also discussed in Part I of the White Paper (The Legal Framework) whereas it would have been more logical to have dealt with the proposed provisions for them in Part II. For clarity, I propose to deal with all these matters under one heading.</p>

scholarly journals Foreword

2014 ◽  
pp. 4
Author(s):  
Charlotte Emmett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Health Care ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Special Issue ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Review Team ◽  
Key Issues

<p>This special issue of the Journal of Mental Health Law has been prompted by the recent publication of the Government’s Green Paper <em>Review of the Mental Health Act 1983: Proposals for Reform</em>. The Green Paper aims to "modernise the legal framework within which mental health care is delivered" by proposing a number of reforms to the current regime established under the Mental Health Act 1983.</p><p>We have aimed in this edition to highlight some of the key issues arising from both the Green Paper and the Report submitted to the Department of Health by the Scoping Study Review Team, in July 1999.</p>

scholarly journals ‘Juridogenic’ harm: statutory principles for the new mental health tribunals

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (9) ◽  
pp. 331-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
W. Obomanu ◽  
H. G. Kennedy
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Proper Place ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Explicit Statement ◽  
First Time ◽  
Health Review

The new Mental Health Act for England and Wales is likely to extend the powers of mental health review tribunals (MHRTs) by giving tribunals the power to approve all compulsory treatment (Department of Health, 1999a, b). The medical member may be dropped entirely from the tribunal's proceedings (Richardson & Machin, 2000). In Ireland, a proposed new Mental Health Act will introduce MHRTs for the first time (Calvert, 2000). The 1983 Mental Health Act contains no explicit statement of underlying principles, although some were introduced in the revised Code of Practice. The Expert Committee (Department of Health, 1999b) suggested that the new Act should specify broad principles where these would help in statutory interpretation, particularly because a range of practitioners working in different settings will be required to understand and implement its provisions. The Green Paper initially suggested that the proper place for setting out principles should be a Code of Practice, but ended by inviting comments on the principles proposed by the Expert Committee, and on whether inclusion of principles would aid interpretation of the new Act.

scholarly journals Code of Practice 1999: navigating before reform of the Mental Health Act 1983

2000 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-4
Author(s):  
Julian C. Hughes ◽  
Tony Lawson
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Public Safety ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Code Of Practice ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

Mental health legislation must steer a course between Scylla and Charybdis. Scylla represents the notion of individual liberties; Charybdis represents the notion of safety and, in particular, public safety. At the time of writing a Green Paper is expected in 1999, so reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 is on its way. Meanwhile, does the new Code of Practice (Department of Health & Welsh Office, 1999), in force since 1 April 1999, give us any indication as to the course we might be steering?

scholarly journals The future (or not) of the medical member

2001 ◽  
Vol 25 (1) ◽  
pp. 8-9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Rooth
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Common Sense ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Judicial Process ◽  
Medical Expertise ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Uncertain Significance ◽  
Present Role

The present role of the medical member combines considerable common sense strengths with a particular legal weakness. It reflects a compromise between the need to inform the judicial process with an appropriate level of medical expertise, and the risk that information could be presented to the tribunal without being open to challenge by the patient.Concern over this perceived, but unresearched risk, is reflected in the Green Paper on the Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Department of Health, 1999). Here the bold solution to a problem of uncertain significance is to remove the offending medical member.

scholarly journals Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983: Squandering an Opportunity?

2014 ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Jill Peay
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Time Scale ◽  
Expert Advice ◽  
Green Paper ◽  
Final Report ◽  
Expert Committee ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Secretary Of State

<p align="LEFT">This article compares and contrasts two recently published documents: the Report of the Expert Committee (chaired by Professor Genevra Richardson) entitled ‘Review of the Mental Health Act 1983’, and ‘Reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 - Proposals for Consultation’.</p><p align="LEFT">Whilst both documents were published in November 1999 under the remit of the Department of Health, the Richardson Report preceded the Green Paper. It was delivered in July 1999 to the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, John Hutton. The Richardson Committee had been established in September 1998 by the DoH in order to provide them with expert advice. The Committee was serviced by the DoH. Accordingly, the contents of the final report would have come as no surprise to them, since they had themselves been fully exposed to the developing reasoning of Richardson. In publishing their own Green Paper some four months later, the DoH had had an opportunity to reflect upon the final Richardson Report. Nonetheless, some might argue that, given the time-scale involved in the production of other similar documents in the field, this rush to a Green Paper was unseemly and unwise. Moreover, since it departs markedly from the recommendations of Richardson, one might argue that the pressure to produce has been, and will prove, counter-productive.</p>

scholarly journals Reforming the Mental Health Act 1983: ‘Joined Up Compulsion’

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (5) ◽  
pp. 5
Author(s):  
Philip Fennell
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Learning Disabled ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Mentally Disordered ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Risk Patients ◽  
The Government ◽  
Personality Disordered

<p>This article discusses the two volume White Paper <em>Reforming the Mental Health Act</em> issued by the Government in December 2000. The two volumes are separately titled <em>The New Legal Framework</em> and <em>High Risk Patients</em>. The foreword to the White Paper appears above the signatures of the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Milburn, and the Home Secretary, Jack Straw. This is heralded as an example of ‘joined up government’, and indeed one of the themes of the White Paper is the need for closer working between the psychiatric and criminal justice systems. The primary policy goal of the proposals is the management of the risk posed to other people by people with mental disorder, perhaps best exemplified in Volume One of the White Paper which proclaims that ‘Concerns of risk will always take precedence, but care and treatment should otherwise reflect the best interests of the patient.’ This is a clear reflection of the fact that the reforms are taking place against the background of a climate of concern about homicides by mentally disordered patients, whether mentally ill, learning disabled, or personality disordered.</p>

scholarly journals Workload implications of the proposed new Mental Health Act – an audit

2003 ◽  
Vol 27 (02) ◽  
pp. 54-57
Author(s):  
Sean Whyte ◽  
Clive Meux
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Clinical Care ◽  
White Paper ◽  
Law Reform ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Forensic Patients ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Government ◽  
Time Required

Aims and Method To estimate specific time and resource implications for professionals, if proposed changes to the Mental Health Act 1983 (England &amp; 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.

scholarly journals Aftercare: who attends section 117 meetings?

1995 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 106-107
Author(s):  
Rosemary Lethem
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Nursing Home ◽  
Patient Care ◽  
Social Services ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Hospital Department ◽  
Health And Social Services ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Legal Duty

The purpose of aftercare is to enable patients to return to their home or accommodation other than a hospital or nursing home, and to minimse the need for future in-patient care. Under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983, local health and social services authorities have a legal duty to provide aftercare for certain categories of patients when they leave hospital (Department of Health and Welsh Office, 1993).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document