header-logo header-logo

Treatment shock

13 September 2007 / David Hewitt
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Rumours of the death of the “treatability test” have been greatly exaggerated, says David Hewitt

Thanks to a last-minute amendment, the Mental Health Act 2007 (MeHA 2007) will be less radical than many people had feared—at least in the way it deals with medical treatment.

In July 2007, MeHA 2007 received Royal Assent. It will amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983), probably with effect from late 2008. As expected, it removes the previous “treatability test”, but, perhaps surprisingly, it does not do so entirely.

THE TREATABILITY TEST

At the moment, MeHA 1983 may be used to detain and give compulsory medical treatment to someone suffering from “mental disorder”. MeHA 1983 recognises four categories of mental disorder: mental illness, mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder (ss 1 and 3); and its definition of “medical treatment” includes “nursing…care, habilitation and rehabilitation under medical supervision” (s 145(1)).
If someone is to be detained for anything other than the short-term, the medical treatment he is to receive in hospital must be “likely to alleviate or prevent a deterioration of his condition” (s 3(2)(b)). This requirement

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll