Date post: | 30-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sophie-higgins |
View: | 214 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Legalised Discrimination?
Is the Mental Health Act a fundamental impediment to developing better ways of
responding to human suffering?
What’s wrong with the MHA (1983, 2007)?
1.Legalised discrimination: infringes basic human rights
2.Based on two dubious concepts: ‘mental disorder’ & ‘risk’
3.Reinforces & perpetuates mental health stereotypes
Legalised discrimination
Sanctions incarceration without trial of people who have committed no crime
Sanctions forcible, non-consensual administration of drugs
Allows advance decisions to be ignored
Community Treatment Orders (CTOs)
Dubious concepts
MENTAL DISORDER – mental illness diagnoses virtually meaningless
RISK – assessments only marginally better than guesswork
- low specificity/abundance of ‘false positives’
Reinforces stereotypes
Assumptions about inherent & inflated risk to others
Implies an inherent defect – sectioning requires no formal assessment of decision-making capacity
Internal deficit assumptions leads to more stigma, less proactivity, more hopelessness & overuse of medication
Coercion is increasing
Number of people subjected to restricted freedoms under the auspices of the MHA has increased by 32% between 2008 and 2013 [Health & Social Care Information Centre, 2015)
Questions to consider
1. DOES THE MENTAL HEALTH ACT CONSTITUTE LEGAL DISCRIMINATION?
2. IS IT FEASIBLE TO RADICALLY IMPROVE THE WAY WE RESPOND TO HUMAN SUFFERING WHILE THE MHA REMAINS?
3. ARE THERE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES TO THE
MHA?
SHOULD WE BE STRIVING FOR ABOLITION OR REVISION?
4. WHAT PRACTICAL STEPS COULD WE TAKE – COLLECTIVELY
& INDIVIDUALLLY – TO
ACHIEVE A CHANGE IN MENTAL HEALTH LAW?
Tales from the Madhouse An insider critique of psychiatric services
Gary SidleyPCCS Books