grah

[ewt]

Mental care bill back in Commons.

More info, anyone?

The whole "personality disorder" thing bothers me greatly.

Comments

[spaglet.livejournal.com]

A brief read of the pamphlet issued about the Bill (and a quick visit to the BMJ's layman's guide to sectioning) suggests that the legally-required two doctors and a social worker is a pain, really, when you've got all the slop from the closure of mental hospitals (yes, often horrendous places - but centralised and therefore more effective per pound) that you've got to deal with. They refer to "assertive outreach, crisis resolution, home treatment, and early intervention teams" as examples of innovation the bill will allow, and claim that a better framework is needed to disburse the extra £300m that was being spent per year in 2004 compared with 2001. (One might ask exactly what the £300m is signalling, because I don't as yet think it's what they think it is.)

The mental health charity MIND's complaint is that Sir Humphrey has ignored the committee in the drafting of the actual Bill. Looking at how they have reportedly (by themselves - this is in the official summary publication from the DoH (http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/idcplg?IdcService=GET_FILE&dID=26970&Rendition=Web)) improved things, it rather looks like there are still many coach sized holes in the guidelines.

They state that a new framework is required by the finding that certain provisions of the 1983 Mental Health Act currently in force have been found in contravention of the ECHR. This might well be true. This bill, however, appears to miss the point quite successfully, and ignore everyone with a professional interest in the subject.

I have much reading to do, I think.