Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionRed
Sectioning someone is only ever used as a last resort. They have to pose a risk to others or themselves and under the mental capacity act it has to be proven that they lack the capacity to make their own decisions about their care and treatment. I don’t know anything about the case you’re talking about. If she’s been properly assessed, diagnosed and medicated and if she’s taking her medication, then she should be seeing improvements. If she’s getting worse then she probably needs to be reassed as an inpatient and if she’s refusing that help, then she could, depending on circumstances, end up being sectioned.
Unfortunately, it can be quite difficult to section someone for more than 72 hours which isn’t nearly enough time to properly assess someone’s mental status and give them the help they need. It becomes a bit of a revolving door for that person needing help.
Mental illness is rife and not everyone with mental illness needs to be sectioned but some do. Lets put it this way. People die every day in this country because there isn't adequate facilities to properly section them.
Mental illness slips through the NHS net more than any other illness.
|
That reminds me actually, in the case of Shelley Duvall she was there for 3 days so I guess that's what probably happened, that she was sectioned but released for refusing to cooperate. (I don't know that's definitely what happened it just fits with what you're saying).
Quote:
Originally Posted by DemolitionRed
Mental illness is rife and not everyone with mental illness needs to be sectioned but some do.
|
I completely agree with that btw, just to clarify it's only people who are clearly severely mentally disturbed that I'm talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toy Soldier
The reason it's a last resort is because forcing someone to do something against their will (anyone, no matter what their mental state) is further damaging to their mental health. This is obviously magnified when the person is already suffering. It obviously has to be done when someone is posing an actual physical risk to themselves or especially others, though.
|
I suppose, I just find it really sad that someone would be left to get to the point where they're physically hurting themselves before intervention, if it's someone without any family caring for them for example who doesn't want to seek treatment, but they are still severely mentally disturbed. I totally understand their rights but at the same time it must be awful for them, especially when their 'will' is based on what we know to be delusions or their inability to assess that they need help. Like DR said it has to be 'proven' they don't have the capacity, and the proof is that they've hurt themselves or others, but why can't that proof extend to other factors where no physical damage has yet been caused, where it's clear to anyone that they're dealing with severe mental illness, but haven't yet damaged themselves physically and seriously. Because at the very least, even if the 'treatment' doesn't help them a great deal in recovering from their illness, at least they'd be in a safe space where they're not left to deteriorate and begin hurting themselves.