Rip up draft mental health bill and start again, says BMA
http://www.100md.com
《英国医生杂志》
The draft Mental Health Bill as it currently stands is unethical, is unworkable and contravenes human rights?legislation, says the BMA.
The only realistic way forward was to scrap the current document and start again from scratch, but this time with a thorough consultation of those with a genuine interest in treating people with severe mental health problems, said Dr Michael Wilks, chairman of the BMA抯 ethics committee.
He was giving evidence to the parliamentary scrutiny committee, a cross party group of MPs and Lords who take evidence and make recommendations on the bill, which was published in September.
"We believe that it is not possible to tinker with these proposals to improve them," said Dr Wilks. "The government really does need to start again by talking to health professionals and other interested groups about what kind of legislation is needed to help people suffering from mental illness as well as protecting the community at large."
In written evidence to the committee, the BMA has outlined a raft of problems with the proposed bill. One major criticism is the bill抯 complexity. According to the BMA, even lawyers working in the area find the bill confusing, which makes it highly unlikely that health professionals and the public will understand it. Another difficulty is the fact the bill refers repeatedly to the codes of practice, which are not currently available.
The biggest stumbling block in the draft bill, however, is the proposal surrounding who can be detained and treated against their will. Charities and pressure groups working in the field of mental health have warned that the terms of the bill mean that many more people could be treated compulsorily, such as those with alcohol problems or who are considered as sexually deviant.
The BMA is concerned that the wide meaning of the term "treatment" would also permit the detention of individuals with learning difficulties and personality disorders. It also believes that the fact that the Bill dispenses with the principle of least restrictive treatment is unethical.
In addition, the BMA is concerned that the bill is not compatible with human rights legislation, although it admits it is not expert in this field. It points out that the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council has stated that the "the bill signally fails to set the standards by which civilised nations should treat this vulnerable and stigmatised group".
The BMA has also questioned how the bill would be implemented with 12% of consultant psychiatrist posts in England and Wales currently vacant. The Department of Health has said an extra 130 psychiatrists will be needed, but it remains unclear how these doctors would be recruited.(London Zosia Kmietowicz)
The only realistic way forward was to scrap the current document and start again from scratch, but this time with a thorough consultation of those with a genuine interest in treating people with severe mental health problems, said Dr Michael Wilks, chairman of the BMA抯 ethics committee.
He was giving evidence to the parliamentary scrutiny committee, a cross party group of MPs and Lords who take evidence and make recommendations on the bill, which was published in September.
"We believe that it is not possible to tinker with these proposals to improve them," said Dr Wilks. "The government really does need to start again by talking to health professionals and other interested groups about what kind of legislation is needed to help people suffering from mental illness as well as protecting the community at large."
In written evidence to the committee, the BMA has outlined a raft of problems with the proposed bill. One major criticism is the bill抯 complexity. According to the BMA, even lawyers working in the area find the bill confusing, which makes it highly unlikely that health professionals and the public will understand it. Another difficulty is the fact the bill refers repeatedly to the codes of practice, which are not currently available.
The biggest stumbling block in the draft bill, however, is the proposal surrounding who can be detained and treated against their will. Charities and pressure groups working in the field of mental health have warned that the terms of the bill mean that many more people could be treated compulsorily, such as those with alcohol problems or who are considered as sexually deviant.
The BMA is concerned that the wide meaning of the term "treatment" would also permit the detention of individuals with learning difficulties and personality disorders. It also believes that the fact that the Bill dispenses with the principle of least restrictive treatment is unethical.
In addition, the BMA is concerned that the bill is not compatible with human rights legislation, although it admits it is not expert in this field. It points out that the Law Reform Committee of the Bar Council has stated that the "the bill signally fails to set the standards by which civilised nations should treat this vulnerable and stigmatised group".
The BMA has also questioned how the bill would be implemented with 12% of consultant psychiatrist posts in England and Wales currently vacant. The Department of Health has said an extra 130 psychiatrists will be needed, but it remains unclear how these doctors would be recruited.(London Zosia Kmietowicz)