Proceeding contribution from Baroness Knight of Collingtree (Conservative) in the House of Lords on Monday, 15 January 2007. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL) and Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [HL].
Mental Health Bill [HL]
I appreciate more than I can say the very kind and generous way in which the Minister has replied to this debate. He has shown me an inordinate amount of thought, care and sympathy compared with that shown in some of the other debates, and I appreciate it so very much. I will be delighted to accept his invitation to talk with him about some of the evidence that I have received. I know that we will be able to do so before too long. My noble friend Lord Howe mentioned medical treatment versus feeding. As I said, I do not know when this came in, but I do know that it is now an accepted rule, and the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, was quite right to say that there is a big difference between feeding people ordinary food and drink and having to do so in the invasive manner that she described. I was also asked whether any family had taken a hospital to court. Several families tried, but it was quite impossible to get any solicitor to take up a case against the mighty NHS. This was said when I was making inquiries and receiving evidence for my Patients’ Protection Bill. So many members of the legal profession felt that they were on an absolute hiding to nothing, because to take on the mighty NHS meant pretty well taking on a hopeless case. What was shocking about a recent inquest, which was reported quite fully, was that the hospital involved tried to lean on the coroner to bring about a certain response. It went so far as to tell him in a written submission, which I have seen—indeed, I read from it in the last debate that we had on this matter—to take no notice of the two medical experts who had spoken on this matter because they happened to be Roman Catholic. So far as I am concerned, if you are a medical expert, your views are entitled to be heard, whether you are Catholic, Muslim, Jew, Methodist, or whatever you are. This and many other such materials and pieces of evidence are what have worried me so much. I very much agreed with many things that the Minister has said. Of course I realise that the amendment was not the ideal vehicle, but my concern has been to stop the slide into acceptance as the norm of helping a few people each week to die by withdrawing food and liquid. This shocks me so much, so although I intend to withdraw the amendment, I must tell the Minister that I will not leave this alone. I shall return to it—I shall keep on and on in one way or another—until patients in hospital receive the protection that they deserve from our health service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 7 [Change in definition of ““medical treatment””]: [Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.] Clause 7 agreed to. [Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 688 c469-70
- Session
- 2006-07
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Children Codes of practice Admissions Consent to medical treatment Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Diagnosis Food Electroconvulsive therapy Mental illness Medical treatments Patients' rights Mental health services Mental health Psychiatric hospitals Standards Young people Safety Testing
- Legislation
- Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:35:56 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369458
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369458
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_369458