10 White Paper: Mental Health Reform



Unknown file type. Enclosure URL IS: - http://www.kcl.ac.uk/iop

Institute of Psychiatry feeds show

Summary: The 10th Maudsley Debate was held on Thursday July 5th on the topic of mental health law reform. A lively audience of service users, psychiatrists, and health care professionals including the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists attended the debate, which was chaired by Professor Tom Fahy. Before hearing the arguments of the speakers only 2% of the audience supported the motion and the implementation of the Government White Paper on Mental Health with 61% opposed and a substantial 37% undecided. Professor Tony Maden of Imperial College opened the debate arguing for the motion. He put forward that the Mental Health White Paper ensured that difficult patients received treatment rather than punishment, and that the governments interest in public protection was valid. Paul Bowen, a barrister of Doughty St Chambers, opposed this, pointing out that the White Paper severely constrained liberty, expanded the class of people subject to coercion, and breached the Human Rights Act. Next Dr Chris Burford, a consultant at St Anns Hospital, Tottenham, supported Professor Maden and the motion. He spoke of changes in psychiatry and the difficulties of revolving door admissions; he suggested that the White Paper provided a framework for treating vulnerable people who otherwise missed or evaded treatment. Finally, Dr Andrew Johns a consultant of forensic psychiatry at the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, concluded by noting that the White Paper coerced both patients and psychiatrists. He rounded up the debate by reiterating the estimation that 5000 patients would require detention in order to prevent a single homicide by a person with a mental disorder. After comments and questions from the floor the audience was able to vote on the motion again. It turned out that still only 1.5% supported the implementation of the White Paper. However the number of those opposed had increased to 90%. The speakers opposing the motion had evidently convinced the majority of those undecided before the debate, whose number dropped to a mere 8.5%.