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