Tags

, , , , , , ,

So I was doing some background reading for a piece I was writing for #7DaysofAction and it involved trying to get a good grasp on the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended by MHA 2007) and the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as they apply to ATUs and other NHS provision, in order to understand how what has happened to so many autistic young people came to happen.

For a non-lawyer, it was a bit of a brain-melt.

The Mental Capacity Act is intended to protect people who lack capacity to make their own decisions.  If there is a reason to suppose that a person is incapable of making a particular decision because of a cognitive impairment, then someone else can be designated to make that decision in the person’s best interests.  The decision-maker has to take into account the person’s preferences and ensure that in each case, the decision made is the ‘least restrictive option’.  When it comes to decisions around where a person should live, there’s a whole extra layer of protection – the ‘Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards‘ or DoLS – intended to make sure if a person is in hospital or a care home, that person lives in the least restrictive environment that can meet their needs.  The Safeguards require the professionals making the decision to show that the proposed restrictions on the person’s liberty are in his or her best interests, and to arrange for the person to have independent support (an Independent Mental Capacity Advocate, or IMCA) to help evaluate and challenge the restrictions.

So far, so good; but the DoLS require the organisation which is applying for a DoLS authorisation to restrict someone’s liberty, to certify that the person ‘has a mental disorder’; and to consider whether they should instead be considered for detention under the Mental Health Act.  The MHA is much more wide-ranging than the MCA; while the MCA is exclusively concerned with capacity, the MHA provides for a plethora of situations in which people may need to be compulsorily treated for a mental illness, including where they are a danger to themselves or others, and where they have committed or are accused of a crime.  Although the statutory guidance under the Act – the Mental Health Code of Practice – says that the person receiving treatment should be involved in its planning, that his or her wishes should be taken into account, that family and/or carers should be involved unless the patient asks for them not to be, and that treatment should be given the least restrictive way possible, this sits uneasily with the forensic, criminal-justice parts of the Act.  Patients are also supposed to have support from an Independent Mental Health Advocate (IMHA) to enable them to understand their rights and  to support any appeal to Mental Health Tribunal against continued detention.  Yet even when the person is detained under civil provisions, the treatment regime for patients with learning disabilities seems to have a strong forensic flavour, along the lines of: demand complete compliance with a regime of generic treatment and prescribed behaviours, unmoderated by any reference to the person’s particular condition(s) and needs; and apply restrictions and sanctions for any failure to comply.  Look at what is happening, today, to Eden and Jack.

The Mental Health Code of Practice was extensively revised in 2015, in the last few months of the Coalition government.  It now contains a whole, separate chapter on learning-disabled and autistic people and the relevance of the Mental Health Act to their care.  It is explicit that inpatient services are not relevant to people with autism or learning disabilities who are not mentally ill; that long-term residence in NHS care is not appropriate.  It contains the phrase, ‘hospitals are not homes’ and is clear that behaviour is communication and that ‘challenge’ is often incorrectly construed as the person being challenging, when it is actually the environment that is challenging the person.  The 2015 Code says that the Mental Capacity Act should be considered and applied along with the MHA; no more MHA automatically trumping MCA.  Read it for yourself.  Chapter 20.

‘Treatment’ is often not appropriate or even applicable: what people need when they are finding the everyday world difficult to navigate, is support.  And a person doesn’t need to be in hospital to get support.  In most cases it can be perfectly well provided in their own home.

A year on, the recommendations of the Code of Practice are taking far too long to trickle down into practice, which is why I am delighted to see that five families are collectively challenging the lawfulness of their autistic and/or learning-disabled family member being detained under the Mental Health Act when it is not (or is no longer) true that:

(a) he is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which makes it appropriate for him to receive medical treatment in a hospital; and

(c) it is necessary for the health or safety of the patient or for the protection of other persons that he should receive such treatment and it cannot be provided unless he is detained under this section.

I wish the dudes and their families all the best and have everything crossed for a definitive win, because at the moment, MHA culture seems to be eating policy and strategy for breakfast, elevenses, lunch, afternoon tea, dinner and supper.  Here’s hoping the law will prove a lot chewier.

Advertisements