Wesselys Mental Health review could also replace Mental Capacity Act

In light of recent events I thought this was important.

"
In England and Wales, you can be detained in hospital against your will if you are diagnosed with a mental health disorder and it’s deemed that your health would benefit from a stay in hospital. In 2007, the definition of ‘disorder’ in the Mental Health Act was expanded to even include people with learning disabilities, even though learning disabilities are not medically treatable illnesses.

In Northern Ireland, in line with UK-UN agreements, a person’s decisions on care cannot be substituted merely on the basis of any condition that the person has.

Prime Minister Theresa May has appointed psychiatrist Professor Simon Wessely to review the Mental Health Act, though not the Mental Capacity Act. That’s another piece of legislation. However, later this month we may see his team recommend that parliament introduce one new law to replace both. Capacity to make decisions is at the heart of many of the rights-based debates around what mental health care should like in the 21st Century."

The article is mostly about the Northern Ireland Model which is different to England and Wales.

https://www.mentalhealthtoday.co.uk...ntal-health-act-lessons-from-northern-ireland

 

For a moment my heart lifted as I read "Wesselys Mental Health review" ... but it was not to be.

 

Anything re SW involvement in changing patients' rights is seriously disturbing.

 

God. That man. (And I use the term loosely.) I hope the MH charities protest any move that widens the remit of psychiatrists in opposition to our fundamental human rights. Letting SW change definitions of 'capacity' could be very worrying indeed.

 

Possibly a chance to reach out to mental health advocates and form some allegiances along these grounds? More MH activism in mainstream media than you can shake a stick at these days.

 

I think that's a good idea.

 

There are some really poor MH advocates currently being promoted, but some good ones around too, and it does seem that a lot of the concerns we have about how we are treated are similar to the problems with how some of those with MH problems are treated. It would be good to find ways of linking up.

 

My only slight concern, being rather clinical about this, is would some people mistakenly view that as tacit acceptance of ME being a mental health issue?

 

I think there actually comes a point where it becomes a case of 'the lady doth protest too much'. We need to be able to ally with MH advocates, as well as any other advocates, without constantly looking over our shoulder and nervously blathering, 'But it's not psychological you know!'

Let the facts stand for themselves. Besides, we can't expect other movements/charities/advocates to show solidarity with us if we refuse to show them solidarity in turn.

By partnering with MH organisations, we can show how inappropriate psychologising affects us all. After all, how many people with serious MH problems aren't being treated because dickhead psychs with power issues are dabbling in illnesses that have nothing to do with them? That leaves the third sector cleaning up their mess and offering the essential services the NHS isn't providing.

 

Locked away
An alarming rise in mental-health sectioning in Britain

"The number of detentions under the Mental Health Act in England rose from 43,463 in 2009 to 63,622 in 2016. The process requires two doctors and one approved mental-health professional, like a social worker or nurse, to agree that a patient needs hospital treatment for a mental-health disorder, and that they may pose a danger to themself or others."

"Sir Simon’s review will report its initial findings in the next few weeks and make proposals later in the year. Some will be quick fixes, but mental-health legislation can take decades to change because it is so complex, he warns.

One hurdle is legal, since the rules on sectioning are tied to other laws, such as the Mental Capacity Act. Another is ethical, because of the need to balance individuals’ right to liberty against the state’s duty to protect them and others. And a third is scientific, as mental illness has many causes, from the genetic to the economic.

The rise in sectioning may have been rapid, but anyone hoping for an overhaul of the system is in for a long wait."

https://www.economist.com/news/brit...sion-among-doctors-may-be-blame-alarming-rise

 

Sir Simon ?

Just a bit too cosy and clubby, isn't it?

Where is the journalistic objectivity and detachment? Dare I say it, the appropriate skepticism?

Not to mention persistent systemic misattribution and misdiagnosis.

Is noble Sir Simon going to be discussing his own cases of sectioning? And those of his close colleagues, such as Prof. Crawley?

Conveniently covering the time up until his death, and hence freedom from facing meaningful accountability.

English farce, writ large and brutal, albeit dressed up in words fine.

There isn't a bucket big enough.

 

That is the way that people with a knighthood have always been referred to. They are never Sir Wessely or Sir Smith or Sir Some Other Surname. They are always Sir "their first name". I think the same is true of women with the female equivalent of a knighthood (a damehood?) E.g. Lady Helen rather than Lady Mirren.

 

Other than making the general population accustomed to/afraid of having their agency removed by the state, I can't understand why a system would want to bear the cost and burden of sectioning people in large numbers. Is it simply the private prison model?

 

I think it's a case of creating demand for their own services at the cost of the taxpayer (and the people sectioned).
There simply aren't enough people prepared to hand over their own money to sustain such a growing bunch of fraudsters.

 

Sir Simon and the establishment do not appear concerned about who is actually running most of the mental health facilities:
"
CCHR Continues to Expose Patient Abuse & Fraud in a $50 Billion Per Year For-Profit Mental Health Industry

The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have joined the multi-Federal agency investigations into the largest psychiatric hospital chain owned by Universal Health Services (UHS)."

"
Expanding the Potential Abuse into the UK

The fact that UHS is allowed to acquire or establish any new psychiatric facility while under federal investigation is astonishing, CCHR says. It has also been allowed to expand its behavioral empire in the United Kingdom, where it acquired the Cygnet psychiatric hospital chain in 2014, then completed its acquisition of another chain, Cambian Group, PLC’s Adult Services Division in December 2016. UHS now owns 102 psychiatric facilities in the UK. In November 2015, CCHR wrote the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), the National Health Service (NHS) and the Care Quality Commission (CQC) warning about the allegations against UHS’s psychiatric operations in the U.S."

"Globally, it is estimated that the behavioral “rehabilitation” market is expected to reach $313.9 billion by 2025. The major mergers and acquisitions include those UK acquisitions by UHS and Acadia Healthcare which acquired the U.K.-based Priory Group.[25]"

https://www.cchrint.org/2017/06/05/uhs-under-investigation/

Instead of throwing more money at it maybe they should be looking at how the money is currently being spent.(?)

 

I suppose the next question is to enquire whether the Register of Members Interests shows any payments to MPs for one reason or another.

 

@Sly Saint Your posts about this subject are terrifying. I've never thought of the UK as being a place where there are a group of people called "The Disappeared" but it would appear that systems are being put in place to allow such a group to be created.

 

It's Dame Helen. Until they make it to the House of Lords.......eg Sir Alan (Sugar) became Lord Sugar.

There was a Dispatches in February where a reporter went undercover at one of the Priorys 'clinics'; but from a quick Google I found several blogs saying that the program had only really skimmed the surface and reeled off lists of even more terrifying examples.

This whole Mental Health awareness campaign at the moment in the UK seems to be largely one involving 'celebrities' talking about depression and anxiety. But (as with the ME situation) little attention is drawn to the really appalling 'treatment' of some of the most seriously ill, or indeed those who should not be in locked up facilities in the first place (eg patients with autism or learning difficulties).

Again, investigative journalists do not appear to be 'joining the dots'....

 

"
Universal Health Services sets reserve for fraud settlement
Updated: March 1, 2018"

http://www.philly.com/philly/busine...ts-reserve-for-fraud-settlement-20180301.html

"The FBI And Defense Department Are Investigating America's Biggest Psychiatric Hospital Chain
At least three federal agencies are investigating whether the psychiatric hospital giant UHS held patients longer than medically necessary to maximize profits, a claim UHS denies."

https://www.buzzfeed.com/rosalindad...-investigation?utm_term=.klrGomKjO#.yoG2eJ0mB

"
Universal Health buys UK mental health services company Cygnet

(Reuters) - Universal Health Services Inc (UHS.N) said it bought British mental health facilities operator Cygnet Health Care Ltd in a deal valued at about $335 million (205.24 million pounds), to enter the UK market."

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-c...services-company-cygnet-idUKKCN0HL1NE20140926

there are loads more