Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 26 February 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [HL].


Mental Health Bill [HL]

My Lords, these are all hypothetical examples, but my assumption in that circumstance would be that discussion would have taken place between the patient and the clinical team, including the responsible clinician and the approved mental health practitioner. If it becomes clear that the patient would find that unacceptable and is unlikely to oblige by it, that would call into question the decision that a community treatment order would be suitable in that patient’s concern. That is the best answer I can give the noble Lord on that. We do not think that the kind of formality that is being proposed here, with the involvement of the tribunal, is the way forward. We believe that the way in which the provision is set out, whereby conditions may be satisfied, is a proportionate approach. I hope that the noble Earl on that basis will consider withdrawing his amendment.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1422 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Consent to medical treatment Carers Conflict of interests Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Advocacy Electroconvulsive therapy Offenders Medical treatments Patients' rights Mental health services Mental health Relatives Scotland Young people Community treatment orders
Legislation
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk