header-logo header-logo

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

Treatment shock

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

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Jurit LLP—Caroline Williams

Private wealth and tax team welcomes cross-border specialist as consultant

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

Freeths—Michelle Kirkland Elias

International hospitality and leisure specialist joins corporate team as partner

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Flint Bishop—Deborah Niven

Firm appoints head of intellectual property to drive northern growth

NEWS
Talk of a reserved ‘Welsh seat’ on the Supreme Court is misplaced. In NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC explains that the Constitutional Reform Act treats ‘England and Wales’ as one jurisdiction, with no statutory Welsh slot
The government’s plan to curb jury trials has sparked ‘jury furore’. Writing in NLJ this week, David Locke, partner at Hill Dickinson, says the rationale is ‘grossly inadequate’
A year after the $1.5bn Bybit heist, crypto fraud is booming—but so is recovery. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Holloway, founder and CEO of M2 Recovery, warns that scams hit at least $14bn in 2025, fuelled by ‘pig butchering’ cons and AI deepfakes
After Woodcock confirmed no general duty to warn, debate turns to the criminal law. Writing in NLJ this week, Charles Davey of The Barrister Group urges revival of misprision or a modern equivalent
Family courts are tightening control of expert evidence. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Chris Pamplin says there is ‘no automatic right’ to call experts; attendance must be ‘necessary in the interests of justice’ under FPR Pt 25
back-to-top-scroll