DMH 282 Further memorandum from the Citizens
Advice
Background evidence to Citizens Advice submission
on Draft Mental Health Bill
Re: paragraphs 5, 7, 8, 9 & 13
Paul
Paul admitted himself voluntarily to
hospital after he recognised he was experiencing some mental health
problems. He was concerned by what he was experiencing and wanted
help. Once in hospital he asked to see a psychologist (talking
therapy). However as with the majority of acute in-patient units
there was no such service (normally it is offered for those in
the community after a 6-9 month waiting time). The nurses were
always busy and rarely spoke to him and his consultant saw patients
once a week briefly at ward rounds. He was offered medication
but said he did not want this as the first point of treatment
but wanted to have psychology to see if this would help.
After being on the ward for a week only
being offered medication he decided to leave. At this point he
was placed on a Section and forced to take medication. He always
felt the medication did not help him and had many side effects.
When he was discharged he came off medication and looked for alternative
ways to keep him well. He took up a computing course and Tai Chai.
He has been free from medication for over a year and is well although
he admits he has his up and downs but he much prefers this to
his experience of being medicated.
Under the current act he can be in the
community and not put on a Section as he is not ill enough to
need hospital treatment and does not meet the conditions met for
Supervised Discharge in the community. However under the new Act
he could well be put on a Section in the community as his refusal
to take medication could be taken as a risk to neglect himself
in the future. Paul is very concerned about this fact.
The new Act would put him on a Section
and force him to take medication that is 'appropriate' which means
it could be given despite it neither alleviating or preventing
a deterioration in his mental health. The 1983 Act requires that
treatment meets the one of the latter two requirements.
The old Act and new Act both fail to
provide Paul with a right to services such as psychology. When
he was on the ward he had no right to request a recognised treatment
(psychology) for his illness and get it. Instead his right was
to be put on a Section and be given medication. Since his discharge
Paul has asked to be referred to a supported work project by his
Dr. but this has been refused (probably because he is not taking
medication). Under the Act (old and new) he has no right to challenge
this.
When he was on the ward, the Act (old/new)
provided for no minimum standards of care despite him being detained
there against his will, eg. access to psychology, access to activities
on the ward, access benefits advice.
| 
