A campaign group condemns a major review into mental health laws. They have failed to consider changes to stop human rights violations in the UK.
The National Survivor User Network (NSUN) contributes to the Independent Review into the Mental Health Act. They say it’s failed to include human rights issues as part of its scope.
It outlines suggested changes to the Mental Health Act (1983) to the government.
However, NSUN says it does not consider bringing legislation in line with the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The UK ratified the international legal agreement in 2006.
The convention applies to people with mental health issues. It also applies to those with physical disabilities.
Under the convention, people with disabilities are entitled to the same rights as those who are not disabled.
They must also not be subject to laws which do not apply to people without disabilities.
The Mental Health Act allows a person to be detained in hospital against their will for assessment and treatment if they are thought to pose a risk to themselves or others.
But, this law only applies to people with a “mental disorder”.
Therefore, critics consider the Mental Health Act discriminatory against disabled people.
Rising detention rates
The Mental Health Act review was set up to address soaring rates of detention under the law. This process is known as sectioning.
It also aims to tackle the disproportionate number of Black and Minority Ethnic detainees.
Over one in every thousand people in the UK is sectioned each year. This is according to NHS Digital.
Detention rates under the Mental Health Act rose over 40% in the 10 years to 2018.
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people are four times more likely to be sectioned than their white counterparts.
Missed opportunity
Representatives from the National Survivor User Network (NSUN), a group being led by and representing people with mental distress, has criticised the review.
This is for not including the UN convention as part of its remit.
Dorothy Gould from NSUN said:
“Our concern is a major opportunity has been missed.”
“What we want is full human rights and we’ve been campaigning for this ever since the last century.”
“The review assumes that the Mental Health Act will continue.”
NSUN raised their concerns during the review with its chair, Professor Wessely.
However, despite NSUN being backed by numerous other groups and individuals, no changes were made to the review’s scope.
The review is criticised by legal and healthcare professionals.
Paradigm shift
Claire de Than, Professor of Law at City University describes the reviews’ suggestions as “tinkering”.
She advocates scrapping the Mental Health Act. This has a heavy focus on controlling potential risk to the public from those with mental health issues.
The Mental Health Act contravenes international treaties
Professor de Than believes new legislation should replace it, which emphasises the human rights people with disabilities are entitled to.
Professor de Than said:
“The UN Convention requires a paradigm shift in how we look at disability rights [including] mental disability.
“The disability convention cannot sit comfortably with the Mental Health Act.”
“We [currently] don’t treat people the same as someone who did not have that disability.”
“Most mental health conditions are disabilities as far as the convention is concerned.”
Risk-averse culture
The review highlighted a risk-averse culture amongst mental health professionals.
This has contributed to the rise in compulsory hospitalisations.
Victoria was sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
She became unwell with bipolar disorder.
When asked about the culture in mental health hospitals, she said:
“[Staff] don’t want another Daily Mail headline where someone leaves a mental health hospital and then kills people.”
“Their psyche is about risk. It’s not about treating that person.”
“There are some people who will leave hospital and do bad things.”
“But, for every one of those there’s a thousand people being discriminated against.”
“[Staff] don’t want another Daily Mail headline where someone leaves a mental health hospital and then kills people. Their psyche is about risk. It’s not about treating that person.
James McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology at the University of Liverpool believes risk-assessment tools used by clinical staff contribute to the number and length of detentions.
Professor McGuire says:
“[These tools] all have an error rate.”
“No measure of this kind is ever likely to be completely accurate.”
“It results sometimes in an overestimation of someone being a danger to themselves or others.”
“This is detrimental to their chance of being released.”
“Sometimes people are detained.”
“This is for much longer than they need to be.”
Sashi Sashidharan, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Glasgow says risk should no longer be considered a criterion for compulsory hospitalisation.
This is if the government wants to address rising detention rates.
“Across western countries, Italy has got the lowest detention rates [under mental health legislation].”
“One of the things that sets Italy apart is that lack of a criterion that specifies risk as basis for entry into psychiatric detention.”
Rheian Davies, a mental health solicitor and former psychiatric nurse believes the high rates of detention amongst BME communities is because staff perceive their level of risk differently.
She says it is a particular issue for black men.
They are often stereotyped by staff as being “big, black and dangerous”.
Hospital stays ‘counterproductive’
Victoria says she was forced to share a room with five men when she was sectioned.
Some were sexually inappropriate towards her.
She also observed drug-dealing and experienced violence on the ward.
When she asked to speak to a lawyer to appeal her detention, she claims staff threatened her with a longer stay in hospital.
Professor Sashidharan believes a more supportive and collaborative approach to
Welcoming wards may improve patient outcomes.
those with mental health issues is crucial.
He suggests reducing detention rates, prioritising community services and improving environments in hospital to improve health outcomes.
Professor Sashidharan said:
“I am constantly struck by how bare and inhospitable these environments are.”
“It’s not surprising that many patients find that environment completely unhelpful and, if anything, counterproductive.”
“If we can make change these environments into helpful, welcoming, hospitable [places] where you’re treated as an autonomous human being, that would make a huge deal of difference.”
The Ministry of Justice, Department of Health and Independent Review representatives were asked for comment but did not respond.
You can listen to the full report here:
Submitted Article
Headline
Short Headline
Standfirst
Published Article
HeadlineCity Investigates: Activists condemn mental health review as ‘missed opportunity’
Short HeadlineCity Investigates: Mental health review a 'missed opportunity'
StandfirstReview authors fail to act to prevent legal discrimination against people with mental health conditions.
A campaign group condemns a major review into mental health laws. They have failed to consider changes to stop human rights violations in the UK.
The National Survivor User Network (NSUN) contributes to the Independent Review into the Mental Health Act. They say it’s failed to include human rights issues as part of its scope.
It outlines suggested changes to the Mental Health Act (1983) to the government.
However, NSUN says it does not consider bringing legislation in line with the United Nations Convention on Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
The UK ratified the international legal agreement in 2006.
The convention applies to people with mental health issues. It also applies to those with physical disabilities.
Under the convention, people with disabilities are entitled to the same rights as those who are not disabled.
They must also not be subject to laws which do not apply to people without disabilities.
The Mental Health Act allows a person to be detained in hospital against their will for assessment and treatment if they are thought to pose a risk to themselves or others.
But, this law only applies to people with a “mental disorder”.
Therefore, critics consider the Mental Health Act discriminatory against disabled people.
Rising detention rates
The Mental Health Act review was set up to address soaring rates of detention under the law. This process is known as sectioning.
It also aims to tackle the disproportionate number of Black and Minority Ethnic detainees.
Over one in every thousand people in the UK is sectioned each year. This is according to NHS Digital.
Detention rates under the Mental Health Act rose over 40% in the 10 years to 2018.
Black and Minority Ethnic (BME) people are four times more likely to be sectioned than their white counterparts.
Missed opportunity
Representatives from the National Survivor User Network (NSUN), a group being led by and representing people with mental distress, has criticised the review.
This is for not including the UN convention as part of its remit.
Dorothy Gould from NSUN said:
“Our concern is a major opportunity has been missed.”
“What we want is full human rights and we’ve been campaigning for this ever since the last century.”
“The review assumes that the Mental Health Act will continue.”
NSUN raised their concerns during the review with its chair, Professor Wessely.
However, despite NSUN being backed by numerous other groups and individuals, no changes were made to the review’s scope.
The review is criticised by legal and healthcare professionals.
Paradigm shift
Claire de Than, Professor of Law at City University describes the reviews’ suggestions as “tinkering”.
She advocates scrapping the Mental Health Act. This has a heavy focus on controlling potential risk to the public from those with mental health issues.
The Mental Health Act contravenes international treaties
Professor de Than believes new legislation should replace it, which emphasises the human rights people with disabilities are entitled to.
Professor de Than said:
“The UN Convention requires a paradigm shift in how we look at disability rights [including] mental disability.
“The disability convention cannot sit comfortably with the Mental Health Act.”
“We [currently] don’t treat people the same as someone who did not have that disability.”
“Most mental health conditions are disabilities as far as the convention is concerned.”
Risk-averse culture
The review highlighted a risk-averse culture amongst mental health professionals.
This has contributed to the rise in compulsory hospitalisations.
Victoria was sectioned under the Mental Health Act.
She became unwell with bipolar disorder.
When asked about the culture in mental health hospitals, she said:
“[Staff] don’t want another Daily Mail headline where someone leaves a mental health hospital and then kills people.”
“Their psyche is about risk. It’s not about treating that person.”
“There are some people who will leave hospital and do bad things.”
“But, for every one of those there’s a thousand people being discriminated against.”
“[Staff] don’t want another Daily Mail headline where someone leaves a mental health hospital and then kills people. Their psyche is about risk. It’s not about treating that person.
James McGuire, Emeritus Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology at the University of Liverpool believes risk-assessment tools used by clinical staff contribute to the number and length of detentions.
Professor McGuire says:
“[These tools] all have an error rate.”
“No measure of this kind is ever likely to be completely accurate.”
“It results sometimes in an overestimation of someone being a danger to themselves or others.”
“This is detrimental to their chance of being released.”
“Sometimes people are detained.”
“This is for much longer than they need to be.”
Sashi Sashidharan, Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Glasgow says risk should no longer be considered a criterion for compulsory hospitalisation.
This is if the government wants to address rising detention rates.
“Across western countries, Italy has got the lowest detention rates [under mental health legislation].”
“One of the things that sets Italy apart is that lack of a criterion that specifies risk as basis for entry into psychiatric detention.”
Rheian Davies, a mental health solicitor and former psychiatric nurse believes the high rates of detention amongst BME communities is because staff perceive their level of risk differently.
She says it is a particular issue for black men.
They are often stereotyped by staff as being “big, black and dangerous”.
Hospital stays ‘counterproductive’
Victoria says she was forced to share a room with five men when she was sectioned.
Some were sexually inappropriate towards her.
She also observed drug-dealing and experienced violence on the ward.
When she asked to speak to a lawyer to appeal her detention, she claims staff threatened her with a longer stay in hospital.
Professor Sashidharan believes a more supportive and collaborative approach to
Welcoming wards may improve patient outcomes.
those with mental health issues is crucial.
He suggests reducing detention rates, prioritising community services and improving environments in hospital to improve health outcomes.
Professor Sashidharan said:
“I am constantly struck by how bare and inhospitable these environments are.”
“It’s not surprising that many patients find that environment completely unhelpful and, if anything, counterproductive.”
“If we can make change these environments into helpful, welcoming, hospitable [places] where you’re treated as an autonomous human being, that would make a huge deal of difference.”
The Ministry of Justice, Department of Health and Independent Review representatives were asked for comment but did not respond.
As e-bike riders weave through London’s busiest junctions, red lights are increasingly treated as optional. One software engineer says the problem may be baked into how hire firms charge users
Deliveroo has announced its sale to U.S. rival DoorDash, but concerns linger over the controversial ‘substitute’ feature at the heart of its operations.
Inside Success Union CIC claim to empower vulnerable young people, but allegations of underpayment and concerns over their fundraising practices are undermining their message.
