Tuesday, February 20, 2007

Remind me: who's the most sick?

Via The Longrider, I see that The Lords have struck yet another blow for civil liberties (no wonder the government wants to reform the second House).
The government has suffered three defeats in the House of Lords over plans to detain mental health patients who have not committed an offence.

What is it with this government and locking people up when they have committed no offence? If it isn't "super-ASBOs" (defended by that fool, Nick Palmer MP), it's the fucking Mental Health Act.

Look, you cunts, you may think that you won't misuse these pieces of legislation (and the rest of us aren't so fucking sure) but some government may do, sometime. And then cunts like Maurice Papon will be herding you into the cattle trucks before you can say, "what the fuck have I done?"
The Mental Health Bill would allow people with severe personality disorders to be confined if judged a threat to themselves or others.

Erm, but I thought that this could be done anyway; I thought that that was the point of "sectioning" someone?
The Mental Health Act 1983, is divided into 10 parts - each one covering a specific area. It is a complex piece of legislation, and some critics argue that reform is needed, especially for the rules outlining the compulsory admission to hospital and treatment of the patient without their consent.

So, can someone explain what is so different about this Bill?

But even where it building on the 1983 Act, there seems to be some pernicious clauses in it.
In the first government defeat, the Lords voted to rule out using sexuality, criminality and cultural or religious beliefs as grounds for diagnosing a mental disorder.

You fucking WHAT!? Are we returning to the days when homosexuality was regarded as a mental illness? Are we going to start slamming Muslims away, never to be seen again, on the pretext of mental illness. I mean, I think that religion is stupid, but I don't regard its adherents as mentally ill (well, not all of them, anyway).

What the fuck is going on with this shit? We are into the realms of a seriously totalitarian regime here, aren't we? Those were the kind of pretexts that Stalin and Hitler used to disappear people, wasn't it?
The second inserts an amendment that treatment can only be given if it is likely to alleviate the condition or prevent it getting any worse.

As opposed to what? Making it more pronounced?
The third says that patients' detentions can only be renewed after they are examined by a medical practitioner.

Erm, wouldn't that seem sensible? If you are going to detain people, and assuming that not every doctor is some kind of Mengele, shouldn't they be the ones to judge whether someone is fit or not?
Tory Earl Howe told peers: "It [the bill] allows individuals who have committed no crime to be detained and committed under compulsion and subjected to treatments that are highly invasive."

Well, it's NuLabour: what do you expect from that bunch of corrupt, control-freak cunts?

4 comments:

purplepangolin said...

The point of this is legislation is to allow the detention of people who cannot currently be sectioned under the mental health act.

People who have personality disorders are not, I believe, covered by existing legislation. My (rather vague) understanding is that this is due to the distinction between a mental illness (something which is treatable, or at least has an identifiable physical cause) and a personality disorder (someone who is "odd" but not mentally ill).

If they are not treatable, then we should not ask the health service to act as gaolers for them. If they are dangerous but not treatable, then there may be a utilitarian argument for locking them up without trial but this is a tough one to sell politically hence the governments desire to fudge it as a mental health issue.

I would be interested to hear clarification/correction from any psychiatrists or lawyers on this.

Ian said...

If a "personality disorder" is not a diagnosable mental illness with a biological basis, it can not be covered by this Bill or any similar legislation.

The potential for abuse of any such legislation is horrifying.

I have discussed this in some detail at Select Privacy today. It is another potential insult to civil liberties by New Labour that as an unfashionable cause has largely been ignored by the mainstream media (unlike road pricing and ID cards), and is therefore all the more dangerous.

Ian

SJK said...

can Blair himself not be sectioned under these rules?

Kafka said...

Of course, in a perfect Socialist world, people like Shipman & Mengele* wouldn't exist at all.

*Beg pardon I forgot he worked for a Socialist......