Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Neuberger (Liberal Democrat) 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]

Other noble Lords have said a great deal to support the amendments in this group. I shall speak very briefly to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, especially on Amendment No. 15, but we on these Benches support all these amendments. The most worrying aspect for me is that it has been relatively easy, with relatively few safeguards, to give ECT to young people under 18. I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Murphy, will say something about that from the viewpoint of those in practice. I therefore feel particularly strongly about Amendment No. 15. Last week some of us received a briefing from the organisation Young Minds. Mike Shooter, the immediate past president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, is now its chairman. It was very interesting to hear what they had to say about young people, particularly those in the age group composed of 16 and 17 year-olds—those who are considered somewhere on the boundary between adulthood and childhood. Nobody truly knows how young people’s brains develop or what effect ECT has on a developing brain. Kathryn Pugh told us about the views of young people who have experienced ECT and of some of the psychiatrists who have been involved in it. It was distressing indeed. Mike Shooter gave her permission to tell us the following story: "““The one time I treated a young woman under 18 with ECT was one of the hardest decisions of my professional career. This young woman was manic, she couldn’t engage with us in any way and I really feared if we couldn’t reach her and help her, that she would die. We discussed ECT endlessly and sought more than one independent opinion. We went ahead with ECT, and it was the best decision we could have made. ECT didn’t make her well, but it enabled her to accept and engage with other treatment””." I think that the whole Committee will be fully behind the amendment, which insists on a second opinion, and that that opinion is taken seriously indeed.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
688 c473-4 
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