Wesselys Mental Health review could also replace Mental Capacity Act

Lucibee said:
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).
Click to expand...
You are right Lucibee.
When the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty came in 2005, there was concern for people with ME having their rights to choose treatment options removed from them.
This was an issue for some like Sophie Mirza.
Safeguarding has also been a huge problem for children and mums in particular (FII etc), but FII does not come under DOLS and the MCA.

I have been involved with MCA and DOLS for a vulnerable adult and it did/should have afford protection and help for that individual and the family.
It would have if the Local authorites had understood and acted on their responsibilities, which they did not.
That case has gone on and on since 2009 and soon will be determined in the Court of Appeal.

FYI
https://www.scie.org.uk/mca/dols/at-a-glance
The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) at a glance

SCIE At a glance 43
Published: May 2015
Last reviewed: June 2017


This briefing summarises the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), an amendment to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It also introduces Liberty Protection Safeguards (LPS), the Law Commission’s proposed replacement for DoLS.


DoLS ensures people who cannot consent to their care arrangements in a care home or hospital are protected if those arrangements deprive them of their liberty. Arrangements are assessed to check they are necessary and in the person’s best interests. Representation and the right to challenge a deprivation are other safeguards that are part of DoLS.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
rvallee said:
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.
Click to expand...

.....and the previous labour government.

Both Labour & the Conservatives have played their part in this.

I think going back to the 80's when Wessely was searching for his niche, he was cute enough to align himself with the incoming ideological trends.
 
rvallee said:
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.
Click to expand...
Invisible Woman said:
I think going back to the 80's when Wessely was searching for his niche, he was cute enough to align himself with the incoming ideological trends.
Click to expand...
Agree. It didn't start out as a conspiracy, just an unfortunate alignment of vested interests.

But, as usual, it has become a conspiracy of sorts to avoid the truth and accountability after it has all gone pear shaped.

Oh, sure, they don't all sit down and have a meeting about how it's all going, and discussing the details of the next step. More the case that they are all politically savvy enough to know how to do the dance of power, without making it too explicit.
 
"One citizen’s riposte to the 2018 Wessely review of the Mental Health Act

Abstract

The Wessely review of the Mental Health Act was conducted in the context of a gradual erosion of civil liberties over the last 35 years which contravenes international human rights legislation. The final report published at the end of last year (Wessely 2018) argues for additional safeguards for mental health patients and advocates a more patient-centred culture that respects the preferences of individual patients and family members. But it leaves in place an authoritarian structure which has resulted in widespread abuse within UK Mental Health Trusts and the system’s integrity would continue to depend on the benevolence and professionalism of psychiatrists. The Wessely review fails to address long-standing problems with under-funding, which have caused serious problems in the current system and is out of step with the reasonable expectations of service users."​

https://livedexperience0404.wordpre...2018-wessely-review-of-the-mental-health-act/

Thought this sounded a familiar issue,

"Lumping all people with mental health problems into a single category and then searching for correlations with social problems leads to misleading generalizations and, as an epidemiologist, Wessely should know better than to perpetuate statistical data which are likely to mislead the casual reader."​
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Life-saving mental health care must not be ‘an awful experience’ for patients
Sir Simon Wessely

methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2F936781de-9051-11e9-a481-4ab277f81b7e.jpg


Article in Sunday Times (requires subscription)
For those with mental disorders, the Mental Health Act can take away your liberty and impose treatment that you don’t want. It can be frightening and confusing, but also help restore health, and even be life-saving.

Societies have debated for centuries how to balance an individual’s right to decide what happens to them with the duty of a civilised society to protect the vulnerable and those unable to care for themselves. The desire to help a fellow human being in serious distress is one of the more attractive aspects of human nature. Most of us, if we see someone about to jump from a bridge, would try to help them step away.

It is the purpose of our Mental Health Act to strike a balance…
Click to expand...

"For those with mental disorders, the Mental Health Act can take away your liberty and impose treatment that you don’t want."

what about those without mental disorders?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/...be-an-awful-experience-for-patients-gghqrrwcx

eta: full thing seems to be available on FB
 
Last edited:
Esther12 said:
Doesn't anyone else get a pang of fear that it has been announced Wessely has been appointed to the House of Lords every time this thread is bumped?
Click to expand...
Lord Bethell The Parliamentary Under-Secretary for Health and Social Care 11:07 am, 2nd July 2020
My Lords, we remain committed to publishing a White Paper that will set out the Government’s response to Sir Simon Wessely’s independent review of the Mental Health Act 1983 and pave the way for reform of that Act. We will publish it as soon as possible. The Covid epidemic does nothing but incentivise us to move as quickly as possible on this.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2020-07-02b.793.2
 
Esther12 said:
Doesn't anyone else get a pang of fear that it has been announced Wessely has been appointed to the House of Lords every time this thread is bumped?
Click to expand...
I think it is going to be very likely.
Simon Wessely back in the news;
Landmark reform of mental health laws
A package of reforms has been set out in a wide-ranging new Reforming the Mental Health Act white paper, which builds on the recommendations made by Sir Simon Wessely’s Independent Review of the Mental Health Act in 2018.
Click to expand...
Minister for Mental Health and Suicide Prevention Nadine Dorries said:

I am committed to improving people’s experience under the Mental Health Act, and most importantly to making sure their care and treatment works for them.

We know people are too often disempowered and excluded from decisions, which is where the act, and our ability to successfully support people often fails.

Informed by Sir Simon’s recommendations, we will transform the act to put patients at the centre of decisions about their own care.

Click to expand...

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/landmark-reform-of-mental-health-laws
 
Last edited by a moderator:
What I can never understand is how SW keeps the ear of people in power?.....apologies for my rant.

Especially after Jonathan Edwards, Tom Kindlon, David Tuller, Ben Hughes, Caroline Wiltshire and all those other heroes of mine, who have worked so hard with all their brilliant clear demolition of the PACE trial.

What more could I do to help?

I’m very aware that my skills of clear calm and helpful comments is very low.
I don’t want to release anything that might give the SW brigade anything useful to their arguments
It’s all too close to my bones and has been for decades.
 
I'm not sure how much we can do as individuals. Perhaps those if us in the UK contact our MP and encourage them to join the parliamentary group on ME/CFS led by Carol Monaghan, and learn more of the background. Realistically most are not going to be interested unless you can persuade them there are votes in it. With the rapid rise in long Covid and people being given wrong advice to exercise by NHS clinics, there should be more interest.
 
Queen’s speech: Campaigners raise concerns over ‘flawed’ Mental Health Act reforms

"Disabled campaigners have raised concerns about a Mental Health Act reform bill which the government plans to introduce in the new session of parliament.

Although many of the proposals to be included in what will be a draft bill were widely welcomed this week, there were concerns at the government’s refusal to push for “full human rights” for people with mental distress.

The bill is one of 38 included in this week’s Queen’s speech, which was delivered by Prince Charles on behalf of the UK government and describes its parliamentary plans for the next 12 months.

The draft reform bill will be based on a white paper published in January 2021, which was put out to consultation, with the government publishing its response last July."

https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...ncerns-over-flawed-mental-health-act-reforms/
 
Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill

Written evidence
MHB0001 - Draft Mental Health Bill
Witnesses Professor Michael Sharpe (Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, UK)
Committees Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill


Published 30 September 2022
Written Evidence

https://committees.parliament.uk/co...on-the-draft-mental-health-bill/publications/

eta: recent publication
Risk factors for suicide in adults: systematic review and meta-analysis of psychological autopsy studies
Louis Favril # 1 , Rongqin Yu # 2 , Abdo Uyar 2 , Michael Sharpe 2 , Seena Fazel 3


https://ebmh.bmj.com/content/early/2022/09/26/ebmental-2022-300549
 
Last edited:
Sly Saint said:
Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill

Written evidence
MHB0001 - Draft Mental Health Bill
Witnesses Professor Michael Sharpe (Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, UK)
Committees Joint Committee on the Draft Mental Health Bill


Published 30 September 2022
Written Evidence

https://committees.parliament.uk/co...on-the-draft-mental-health-bill/publications/
Click to expand...

Written evidence submitted by Professor Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychiatry at Oxford University, UK (MHB0001) Mental health act and general hospitals

"I write as a professor of psychiatry who specialises in psychiatry in the general hospital. My point is a brief one: Has the new act and associated code of practice taken into account the use of the mental health act in general hospitals (acute trusts)? As the committee is aware, the simplistic assumption that mentally ill people go only to ‘mental health’ trusts is wrong. In fact mental illness is increasingly present in patients of general hospitals as part of multimorbidity (the presence of multiple medical and psychiatric disorders in the same patient).

Consequently patients may be admitted to general hospital whilst detained under the Act or may be detained to the general hospital whilst an inpatient. A large hospital may have several patients so detailed at one time and ten to twenty detentions over the year. This raises three issues:

1. The act and its code of practice must be suitable for use in this setting.

2. The general hospital must have appropriate physical settings for such patients

3. The general hospital must have access psychiatrists and appropriately trained nurses, preferably on their own staff. At present none of the above a fully addressed. It is to be hoped that the new act and associated provision will address them.

Michael Sharpe MD 1 August 2022"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top