Parliamentary Search

Proceeding contribution from Ann Coffey (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 19 June 2007. It occurred during Debate on bill on Mental Health Bill [Lords].

Mental Health Bill [Lords]

There is something I do not understand. We are talking about a situation in which two clinicians have already established that a person is suffering from a mental disorder and needs to be compulsorily admitted for treatment. Part and parcel of such a mental disorder is some degree of thought disorder—in a sense, that is the manifestation of the disorder. How does the hon. Gentleman’s extra condition of judgment being ““significantly impaired”” help the clinician who has already made the judgment that that person has a serious mental disorder?

Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
461 c1287 
Session
2006-07
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Disability Alcoholic drinks Community care Autism Compulsorily detained psychiatric patients Dangerous psychiatric patients Culture Diagnosis Finance Homicide Drugs Discrimination Ethnic groups Mental illness Medical treatments Northern Ireland Mentally disordered offenders Police custody Mental capacity Misuse Patients' rights Psychiatric patients Mental health services Mental health Prescriptions Paedophilia Scotland Religion Victims Sexuality Right of search Suicide Political doctrines Secure psychiatric units Community treatment orders Behaviour disorders
Legislation
Mental Health Bill (HL) 2006-07
Link
View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk