Dans sa lettre (26 janvier), le professeur Tom Burns conteste les informations que nous avons communiquées au Guardian (les avocats veulent mettre un terme au traitement forcé des patients hospitalisés en psychiatrie, 24 janvier). Nous lui sommes reconnaissants pour ses arguments et souhaitons clarifier que seuls les patients détenus par ordre des magistrats ou des tribunaux de la couronne en vertu de la loi sur la santé mentale devront attendre six mois avant de faire appel devant un tribunal. Dans notre témoignage à l’étude indépendante, nous soulignons qu’une fois qu’une personne est détenue pour traitement en vertu de l’article 3 de la loi, l’ordonnance qui le retient dure jusqu’à six mois, mais elle peut être levée par l’hôpital ou le tribunal. et, dans certains cas, le «parent le plus proche». Il est inhabituel pour un patient de rester à l’hôpital pendant six mois: c’est pourquoi nous pensons que cette période est trop longue – elle est démoralisante et angoissante et ne reflète pas la réalité dans la grande majorité des cas. Par conséquent, dans notre preuve, nous suggérons qu’une limite initiale de trois mois est considérée.
Second, in relation to the point on community treatment orders, health professionals in London boroughs have reported to some of our members that payments are offered to patients for attending appointments where depot injections – a slow-release form of medication – may be administered, rather than for taking the medicine itself. This is reflected in our response, where we say we understand “that London hospitals go so far as to offer financial rewards to patients who attend appointments for depot injections”.
Christina Blacklaws
Vice-president, Law Society of England and Wales
• Sally Cheseldine (Letters, 26 January) suggests that reforms of English mental health law might follow Scotland in providing for short-term 28-day detention, and rights of appeal against short and long-term detention, supported by legal aid. In fact, all these provisions already exist under England’s Mental Health Act 1983 (amended 2007) and Legal Aid Agency rules; Wales has equivalent provision. There is a danger that the government’s review of mental health law will rapidly become a distraction from the more pressing problem of underresourcing of mental health services.
Nick Gould
Emeritus professor of social work, University of Bath
Tom Burns is right in his response to the Law Society request for a review of the Mental Health Act. The act is largely fit for purpose. The problems are in the lack of well-thought-out and properly resourced services. The lack of investment in systematic workforce planning, education and training and service development is, or at least should be, a cause of acute concern and no little embarrassment.
If there is anyone left in the government with any interest in mental health they should hang their head in shame.
Ian Baguley
Professor emeritus of mental health, University of Lincoln
Source: http://bit.ly/2BBhzNy
