Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Earl Howe (Conservative) 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, I thank the Minister for his reply and take note of his comments. He described the amendment as a ““cliff edge approach””. I do not share that analysis. The amendment would certainly not oblige a clinician to discharge a patient. The point is that it would leave open the option of a fresh assessment for the patient. In my view, that is only fair to the patient if, after three years, his condition has shown insufficient signs of improvement. We are seeking to avoid a situation where too few questions are asked. Once someone is on a CTO, it is very easy for a clinician to renew it with insufficient thought about whether it is the right thing to do therapeutically. Nevertheless, there is not going to be agreement between me and the Minister on this. It perhaps needs to be tested in the field before we see whether an open-ended arrangement is sensible and right. Noting the Minister’s objections, and with my own reservations and doubts on the record, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. [Amendment No. 45 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c1427 
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