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
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 12:37:18 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_379567
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_379567
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_379567