ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Mental health patients being denied human rights in court(211 Posts)
Emily Dugan, Social Affairs Correspondent, published Friday 03 January 2014
Brief, fair use excerpt:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
People with mental health problems are being denied justice by some Court of Protection judges who fail to even consider hearing patients’ testimony, leading lawyers have told a House of Lords inquiry.
Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice”. She added: “Just because someone is deemed not to have capacity doesn’t mean they shouldn’t have the chance to speak to the judge about an important decision affecting their lives.
The decisions of the court came under scrutiny earlier ... when it emerged Italian mother Alessandra Pacchieri had a caesarean section performed against her wishes and that her daughter was later taken into "care". ...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
It's good that they acknowledge that when people are denied opportunity to speak in their own defense when accused of being mental in an English Star Chamber secret court, it is not just the victim but her child or children who are denied justice also.
Mummra, you are now actually making up something you fondly imagine I have said. As you seem to be having a discussion in your head I suggest you go and do it elsewhere.
I gave my breif thoughts on the matter, then you proceeded to accuse me of beign some internet boogeyman without any knowledge of me. If that is not being paranoid I don't know what is. While you may be naive in your belief that the NHS is perfect there is plenty of examples of critical failures, some are even highlighted in the MCA report. Pretending problems do not exist or ignoring mistakes only leads to more problems.
You can find the report here. www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldmentalcap/139/139.pdf
Mummra, if you're not simply the latest in a long line of people with strangely similar posting styles and an obsession with the Pacchieri case who suddenly pop up out of nowhere, fine. I will simply point out that there have been four long, long threads on that case and various others where it has been mentioned, so I suggest you go away and read those before trying to reopen the issue.
I am however fascinated at your long distance diagnosis of my mental health in light of your posts so far.
Sorry but the link posted by the OP.... goes directly to the homepage of The Independent....
Are we supposed to browse the whole Independent website to find the article you are referring to?
"You really do come over as uncannily like you did last time the last poster who was desperate to discuss this case. Sorry, I'm not playing."
2. A tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others.
All you had to say was you do not know the answer to my question. I didn't expext anyone to have the definitive answer, I was merely stating my thoughts before you started accussing me of being... someone? You never did elaborate on that. I just want you to know its okay, I don't know what your experiances on this forum have been, and as such I can not blame you for your views on me however misplaced they are.
Sorry, I never mentioned paranoia, nor did I imply anything about schizophrenia. Still not playing.
My asking why schizophrenia was not considered relevant in child care hearings makes you paranoid? I also believe that DV and learning disabilities are also relevant in child care hearings. I am merely asking why if she suffers from schizophrenia it was not important in the child care hearing. Schizophrenia is a very serious mental illness and not to be brushed off as you seem to imply.
You really do come over as uncannily like
you did last time the last poster who was desperate to discuss this case. Sorry, I'm not playing.
If Ms Pacchieri does suffer from both schizophrenia and bi-polar than that is very relevant to both judgements. My question is why is schizophrenia important in the Mostyn judgement, but not important in the Newton judgement, and vice versa on bi-polar.
I came to post about the report. I noticed someone mention the case and I gave my thoughts. I apologize if you were offended by my use of freedom of expression. When did Ms Pacchieri say that she was diagnosed correctly or suffered from schizophrenia?
More to the point what are your thoughts on the house of lords report? Seeing how that was the topic I came to post about.
Not even Ms Pacchieri has suggested that she was misdiagnosed or treated wrongly. Total red herring.
Fortunately the transparency guidelines will not allow the great British public to pore over people's private medical records.
I notice that you're a new poster. It is indeed strange that people getting into this debate always seem to pop up out of nowhere, obsess about it, and then disappear. Anyone would think it was the same person every time.
I reread Mostyn's judgement. There is no mention of Bi-polar to be found, the reasons given for incapacity are schizophrenia and psychosis. I can not find any refernce to schizophrenia in judge Newton's judgement. The only thing I can think of for the reason is a terrible misdiagnosis that may very well have caused PTSD in this poor woman and a delay in her recovery.
Confusing schizophrenia with bi-polar is not a minor issue as the treatment varies quite a bit between the two. The trust had for weeks after the c-sect which chould have allowed for full treatment without fear of pregnancy.
My hope is that with the new transparency guidelines such cases will be more easily examined for what went right and what might have gone wrong.
Mummra13, the psychiatrist concerned in the Pacchieri case is very reputable, and you are reading far too much into one reference in one judgment to schizophrenia. There was nothing "miraculous" about her cure once in Italy; the simple fact is that, when in England, she was very ill indeed, the treatment they could give her whilst she was pregnant was limited, and there are no overnight cures for bipolar disorder. If she was well several months later, that is not a miracle cure.
I'm suprised no one has mentioned the report which is now widely availible. http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201314/ldselect/ldmentalcap/139/139.pdf
Rather unfortunately it appears that many people actually have had their rights unjustly violated either through incompetence or neglect of the MCA which has been the law for 9 years now. Hopefully with this report health workers and courts will start to learn how to properly implement the MCA.
As for HollyHB brining up Alessandra Pacchieri. I think it is less troubling that the MCA may not have been followed in light that she had been treated for severe schizophrenia and psychosis instead of being treated for severe bi-polar. This would explain why she did not get better in the health trust care yet made a miraculous under the care of her doctors back in Italy. I do not believe it was done in malice, I just think her psychiatrist in England was either very bad at their job or believed schizophrenia and bi-polar are interchangable. The treatment for the two personality disorders are different.
Agreed. There are less convoluted ways of writing about MH problems whilst refraining from toolisms and prejudical comments.
Mental" is a common (perhaps Northern) colloquialism for a person whose capacity to make sound decisions is severely impaired by a psychological disorder. It is much shorter to write "mental" than to write "with severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a mental disorder" and almost everyone (though apparently not everyone) is familiar with commonplace English colloquialisms
Having worked "oop north" in mental health for 13 years,mi. An commit that "mental" definitely isn't used as a colloquialism.
And look! It's in Birmingham! What will JH have to say about this I wonder?
I assume holly will be equally outraged by this?
And tell me it has nothing to do with lack of staff, lack of training etc but it's all down to one big State conspiracy.
I'd also like more midwives, maybe the one that Cameron promised all of those years ago that haven't materialised. Could stop a lot of deaths and would be quite nice, you know.
Any more for suggestions of things an MP could be positively putting his mind to, to take to Westminster?
"Well if we can't agree that that is the case then can we at least agree that the House of Lords is being told by the enquiry it commissioned that that is the case?"
Tell you what, you answer Spero's question and I might answer yours
Sorry op, ignored your question.
Read what you posted again
Charlotte Haworth Hird, a solicitor who contributed to the submission, said that depriving patients of the right to speak for themselves “can lead to injustice
so Charlotte is concerned that this practice 'can' lead to injustice. She may well be right, depending on how each individual patient is being supported in each individual case.
But again, how was Alessandra Pacchieri treated unjustly in her case? Where is the 'remarkable' breach of the law here?
Could I just put in a general plea for a higher quality Conspiracy Theorist please?
there is a lot of energy, experience and intelligence on these threads from various posters. I wonder what we could achieve if we could actually have some sensible debate about the real problems?
John the trouble is they are being 'told' a load of made up facts and figures with no backing. So really a lot of time and effort has gone on something about as useful as a chocolate teapot. Next time just ask for funding. If you aren't thrown out on your arse before then!
As for "But no-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be notified that there is legal action being taken against them. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to see the evidence being presented. No-one is ever too ill or too disabled to be offered a chance to speak for themselves, even if they are too ill to be able to accept the offer." I beg you to actually meet a person in a psychotic state. As a millionaire MP, I am sure you can pull a few strings to get a free viewing in your own constituency. You might understand why some of us feel you are making a mockery of mental health issues, let alone human rights.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.