Wesselys Mental Health review could also replace Mental Capacity Act

None of them medical though. SW could well run rings around them.

 

It is to be hoped that the House of Lords Appointments Commission is aware of the problems. One wonders how they go about their business. Probably the views of the Plebs will not count for much.

 

Modernising the Mental Health Act – final report from the independent review
Independent report - gov.uk. 6 Dec 2018
https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...-act-final-report-from-the-independent-review

Government commits to reform the Mental Health Act
News story - gov.uk. 6 Dec 2018
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-commits-to-reform-the-mental-health-act

 

Yes, I caught that too. Put me off my lunch. Sadly I also caught Simon on BBC Breakfast which rather spoiled my early morning tea in bed. I expect he'll be on the other news this evening too, might try Channel 4 instead.

 

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...ew-falls-significantly-short-on-human-rights/

 

Am I being mistaken that Wessely also lead the last review, which by all accounts has lead to a massive unsustainable crisis? So they put the guy who caused the problem in charge of fixing the problem he helped create?

Or did he lead an earlier version?

But I'm not sure what people can expect here. Anything Wessely does will make the problem worse, which as far as I can imagine from the last decade of austerity politics in the UK is probably the whole point. He is exactly the worst person for the job, as his ideological beliefs are the problem, by overloading mental health services with medical patients, which degrades the delivery of all services in every way.

 

Basically the outcome of the review is that people have the right to a say in their care and police should stop locking up black people in jail for suffering from schizophrenia.

Did this really need expert review?

Nothing will change except Wessely will receive more notoriety and probably get a feature in the Guardian showing him in his study wearing chinos, with rolled up sleeves on his shirt and books in the background.

 

You are indeed mistaken. The last review was led by Professor Genevra Richardson. The 1983 MHA was reviewed in 1998-1999, which led to a Green Paper in 2000 and the full amended act (after many further revisions) arose in 2007. Here is the Kings Fund briefing on the 2007 MHA [pdf].

It is always going to tricky dealing with any legislation which involves temporarily taking away rights and freedoms from members of the public, but it's also important to keep a distinction between the MHA and the Mental Capacity Act, which although it seems similar, actually deals with a different set of issues - namely the provision of care when someone is incapacitated and unable to provide their consent for something other than the thing that incapacitated them in the first place (if that makes sense).

 

From Coyne

https://twitter.com/user/status/1070975099459788801

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1071041821160153089

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1073239362580688897

https://twitter.com/user/status/1073257755547443200

https://twitter.com/user/status/1073264935214436352

 

Also this from the Lancet:

Mental health law: still no parity of esteem

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(18)33114-3/fulltext

Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but to me it didn't seem to make it clear that they wanted 'parity' by just increasing the power/rights of those with MH problems rather than also diminishing them for those with physical health problems.

 

Theresa May’s mental health act reform: Warm words but scant action

full article:
https://davidhencke.com/2018/12/29/...ealth-act-reform-warm-words-but-scant-action/

 

Hardly surprising, given that Wessely's behaviour always comes across as that of a highly ambitious political animal first and foremost, with everything else secondary to that. I doubt people reach such politically influential positions unless those in power are confident they are highly motivated to toe the required political line; in this case is far more about saving money whilst dressing it up to sound altruistic.

 

The review itself might be good and needed but it was galling to see wessely able to be involved in such a thing, to great acclaim and praise , solidifying him further as untouchable in the establishment and medical profession and almost adding savior status on working on behalf of the vulnerable. We, who know his history, influence and slithery behaviour in other fields view him entirely differently. There’s been all the commendable talk of putting patients at the heart and listening to them etc, since when did he do that in CFS ?
It’s also a bit ironic that a psychiatrist who through half his career chose to work outside mental health essentially in CFS and GWS should have risen so high in psychiatry,...

 

I think it's just missing a dimension. Political influence usually means someone with political power exerted influence on the process to achieve an outcome over someone who would have done things differently.

Wessely has his own political agenda, which exerts command on his own largely political work. It just happens to be largely the same as the austerity politics pursued by May's government.

Technically there is no need for political influence if interests align, predate and are internal to the person doing the work. This is obviously why he was the right choice.