Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Do people genuinely believe 'you should get her/him sectioned' as some sort of option?

254 replies

likelysuspect · 26/04/2026 19:31

I see this sort of comment quite a lot on here and its cropped up in another thread.

'you should consider getting her sectioned'

And the OP is thanking the poster for the useful advice!!

The issue around sectioning has also come up a lot in the threads about the Southport killer and on threads about children with that sort of presentation

It astounds me that in this day and age people still think that you can 'get someone sectioned' as if you just phone someone and the black Maria comes and gets them.

OP posts:
Original poster
likelysuspect · 27/04/2026 21:05

Firefly1987 · 27/04/2026 20:57

@likelysuspect and what if they DO need detainment? You don't seem to be distinguishing between the cases you mention and those that are actually very seriously unwell. It'll be family who are blamed for not doing enough if it ends in tragedy.

If they need detaining then thats what the assessment will find once its been requested (if medics agree to hold one, there has to be a clinical need for that)

The assessment may not take place as we've discussed for a myriad of reasons, or might take place and detainment is recommended but no beds or detainment is recommended and they'll be admitted.

Family arent to blame for anything. The fact you write this like this shows you seem to think its some sort of friend or family responsbility

To use the other hospital analogy, you wouldnt phrase it that your brother didnt get his hernia operation or sister didnt have her gall bladder taken out because the family didnt do anything? Not the greatest comparison but its all Ive got right now as Ive got a migraine.

OP posts:
NoctuaAthene · 27/04/2026 21:13

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 20:18

I think you have an important point here. I accept that there's insufficient capacity within the NHS for MH issues, and that for all our safety it should be increased. But can you put numbers on how much MORE money is needed, and HOW MANY more therapists are required? Even more important, can they deliver? It is quite easy to write, my team are under pressure, we need more xxxxx. But if you don't or can't suggest a better solution, maybe because there really isn't a better or faster fix, then what do you propose?

The regular ordinary tax payer like you, me and your NDN who work every day are already paying massively rising tax bills. I am only moderately sympathetic to people telling me they need more help. A bit too anxious to join a new workplace? Too depressed? At some point, someone needs to point out, in a very loud voice, that sometimes we all have to do shit we don't like or want to do.

Show quote history

With respect, the issues we're discussing on this thread are as far as away from someone feeling a bit nervous at work or sad about a normal life event as everyday sniffles and runny noses are from COPD or lung cancer. People needing inpatient treatment for their mental health likely have serious and enduring mental health conditions like schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorders so we're talking a totally different order of magnitude both for measuring the resources necessary for treatment and the 'success' of that treatment. Aside from everything else there's a direct public interest test in ensuring people who pose a major risk to themselves and others are kept safe and insofaras possible helped to be safe to live in the community again. And as the poster you were quoting is saying, these people (if they're not left in the community continuing to pose that risk) are often being held in totally unsuitable environments while awaiting a bed in an inpatient setting, usually A&E or police cells, taking up a lot of resources and staff time, taking a bed that someone else could use as well of course not being appropriately treated. You could quite easily tot up the amount of time spent by patients under section in a&e waiting for a bed and commission that many extra inpatient bed days - why they don't do that I'm sure has reasons but it seems a no-brainer in my non expert opinion... whether or not that inpatient treatment is the most effective way to treat chronic mental illness and whether good preventative community based services are more effective is another discussion altogether!

notatinydancer · 27/04/2026 21:20

RhiWrites · 26/04/2026 20:03

I have got someone sectioned twice and was tangentially involved in a third incident. Yes, they have to be a danger to themselves and others and it takes two doctors to sign off on it, so it’s not easy. But it does happen.

You personally didn’t section them though ? Or are you an AMHP?

Original poster
likelysuspect · 27/04/2026 21:20

Firefly1987 · 27/04/2026 20:57

@likelysuspect and what if they DO need detainment? You don't seem to be distinguishing between the cases you mention and those that are actually very seriously unwell. It'll be family who are blamed for not doing enough if it ends in tragedy.

I forgot to add this bit, Im talking about people who are very seriously unwell, Im not distinguishing between cases.

OP posts:
FlyingUnicornWings · 27/04/2026 21:33

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 20:18

I think you have an important point here. I accept that there's insufficient capacity within the NHS for MH issues, and that for all our safety it should be increased. But can you put numbers on how much MORE money is needed, and HOW MANY more therapists are required? Even more important, can they deliver? It is quite easy to write, my team are under pressure, we need more xxxxx. But if you don't or can't suggest a better solution, maybe because there really isn't a better or faster fix, then what do you propose?

The regular ordinary tax payer like you, me and your NDN who work every day are already paying massively rising tax bills. I am only moderately sympathetic to people telling me they need more help. A bit too anxious to join a new workplace? Too depressed? At some point, someone needs to point out, in a very loud voice, that sometimes we all have to do shit we don't like or want to do.

Show quote history

I’m really not sure I understand your point? It’s not our job as frontline patient facing staff to get involved in the politics at play as to why there aren’t enough beds. We are there to care for patients.

I’m not sure your second point has place in this discussion. We are discussing the use of language around sectioning and inpatient care for people with severe mental illness.

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 21:38

NoctuaAthene · 27/04/2026 21:13

With respect, the issues we're discussing on this thread are as far as away from someone feeling a bit nervous at work or sad about a normal life event as everyday sniffles and runny noses are from COPD or lung cancer. People needing inpatient treatment for their mental health likely have serious and enduring mental health conditions like schizophrenia, psychosis, bipolar disorders so we're talking a totally different order of magnitude both for measuring the resources necessary for treatment and the 'success' of that treatment. Aside from everything else there's a direct public interest test in ensuring people who pose a major risk to themselves and others are kept safe and insofaras possible helped to be safe to live in the community again. And as the poster you were quoting is saying, these people (if they're not left in the community continuing to pose that risk) are often being held in totally unsuitable environments while awaiting a bed in an inpatient setting, usually A&E or police cells, taking up a lot of resources and staff time, taking a bed that someone else could use as well of course not being appropriately treated. You could quite easily tot up the amount of time spent by patients under section in a&e waiting for a bed and commission that many extra inpatient bed days - why they don't do that I'm sure has reasons but it seems a no-brainer in my non expert opinion... whether or not that inpatient treatment is the most effective way to treat chronic mental illness and whether good preventative community based services are more effective is another discussion altogether!

Show quote history

That's all hoisted in, and I accept everything you say. But the reality is that to do better, someone has to pay more, and in real life it will be a great deal more, to deliver the much better service you have in mind.

I agree unreservedly that it is needed, but as a boring MC pensioner who does not have a defined benefit pension that will pay me an index-linked CPI related sum for the rest of my life, I cannot afford to sign up for the payments. I shall need to pay my own care home fees. At £80k per year, our carefully saved pension fund will last about five years for one person. Plus the proceeds of any house sale.

Firefly1987 · 27/04/2026 21:40

likelysuspect · 27/04/2026 21:05

If they need detaining then thats what the assessment will find once its been requested (if medics agree to hold one, there has to be a clinical need for that)

The assessment may not take place as we've discussed for a myriad of reasons, or might take place and detainment is recommended but no beds or detainment is recommended and they'll be admitted.

Family arent to blame for anything. The fact you write this like this shows you seem to think its some sort of friend or family responsbility

To use the other hospital analogy, you wouldnt phrase it that your brother didnt get his hernia operation or sister didnt have her gall bladder taken out because the family didnt do anything? Not the greatest comparison but its all Ive got right now as Ive got a migraine.

Show quote history

Family arent to blame for anything. The fact you write this like this shows you seem to think its some sort of friend or family responsbility

Because that's how the public see it. Just ask the Nottingham killer's family who have been criticised for not doing enough, or for making a programme trying to explain their side and the failings of MH services "acting like victims when they should just go away" I know it's not friends or family's responsibility but ultimately people who have zero clue about schizophrenia will have an opinion that they should've prevented it somehow. I didn't want to end up in their shoes.

To use the other hospital analogy, you wouldnt phrase it that your brother didnt get his hernia operation or sister didnt have her gall bladder taken out because the family didnt do anything? Not the greatest comparison but its all Ive got right now as Ive got a migraine.

Someone not having an operation doesn't affect other innocent lives like leaving someone in the community who is hearing voices telling them to kill someone.

I forgot to add this bit, Im talking about people who are very seriously unwell, Im not distinguishing between cases.

I'm not sure what you actually want then. Are you just against anyone being sectioned full stop?

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 21:46

@likelysuspect and @FlyingUnicornWings , I don't know a lot about really serious MH cases like Vito Caldocane or Axel Radakanu, but both were clearly deranged and dangerous, and known to the (putative) authorities who failed in their duty of care for the public safety. IM not expert opinion, both should have been behind bars.

FlyingUnicornWings · 27/04/2026 21:48

NoctuaAthene · 27/04/2026 15:23

Yes in my experience also a lot of admissions are voluntary - but again voluntary doesn't mean what you think it means in normal speak. You can't just pitch up feeling a bit down/anxious and have a lovely few days being fed nourishing meals and doing group therapy or however you imagine a modern mental health hospital would be before you experience the crashing reality.

To be admitted as a voluntary patient you do need to be really seriously unwell - tbh in my entirely unqualified opinion to comment (not a professional just a relative), most voluntary patients are not in fact well enough to understand or consent to their voluntary admission and probably would qualify for a section if they weren't compliant enough to say they'll stay voluntarily. My relative has been admitted under voluntary several times when he's been repeatedly and loudly attempting to leave and had to be locked in - what part of that is voluntary I don't know. I've also definitely and frequently heard staff use sectioning as a threat, i.e. if you don't agree to stay voluntarily we'll put you on a section which I'm sure is not quite right either. I wouldn't challenge it as him being kept in and made to have treatment 💯 is the right thing for him and I guess whatever boxes the staff have to or want to tick to make that happen is a secondary consideration but I'm sure in a functioning and well resourced system we wouldn't have these weird quirks...

The least restrictive option is always the one that is preferred. So at the end of a MHA, it’s often asked if the patient would go in “informally” or not. If the patient says no then they will be sectioned.

However, while on the ward, staff should never throw around the threat of sectioning an informal patient as a means of control. Not only is it not ethical, it’s also an empty threat because the same rule still applies even if a patient is already on the ward - a MHA act assessment with two doctors and then an AMHP needs to be done to decide if sectioning is needed.

You can’t just be put on a section. Unless it’s called a section 5 (2) which a nurse can use to hold a patient who is at risk for up to six hours, in which time a Psychiatrist will have to come and assess the patient to decide on the next steps.

Original poster
likelysuspect · 27/04/2026 21:49

Firefly1987 · 27/04/2026 21:40

Family arent to blame for anything. The fact you write this like this shows you seem to think its some sort of friend or family responsbility

Because that's how the public see it. Just ask the Nottingham killer's family who have been criticised for not doing enough, or for making a programme trying to explain their side and the failings of MH services "acting like victims when they should just go away" I know it's not friends or family's responsibility but ultimately people who have zero clue about schizophrenia will have an opinion that they should've prevented it somehow. I didn't want to end up in their shoes.

To use the other hospital analogy, you wouldnt phrase it that your brother didnt get his hernia operation or sister didnt have her gall bladder taken out because the family didnt do anything? Not the greatest comparison but its all Ive got right now as Ive got a migraine.

Someone not having an operation doesn't affect other innocent lives like leaving someone in the community who is hearing voices telling them to kill someone.

I forgot to add this bit, Im talking about people who are very seriously unwell, Im not distinguishing between cases.

I'm not sure what you actually want then. Are you just against anyone being sectioned full stop?

Show quote history

I have no idea what you're talking about now, what do you mean 'what do I want'

I would like people to stop using and thinking of MH detainment as something you 'do' to someone else as another member of the public/family/friend

Its a health service and medical assessment. Completed by assessment by professionals.

Not everyone who hears voices telling them to kill needs detainment either. An example above, and there may be more detail to this, is where the poster says someone was throwing poo around and not eating because the food was poisoned. Very very ill, but probably not detainable on those factors alone.

Just because there is a media man hunt sometimes doesnt mean we have to go along with it

OP posts:
FlyingUnicornWings · 27/04/2026 21:55

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 21:46

@likelysuspect and @FlyingUnicornWings , I don't know a lot about really serious MH cases like Vito Caldocane or Axel Radakanu, but both were clearly deranged and dangerous, and known to the (putative) authorities who failed in their duty of care for the public safety. IM not expert opinion, both should have been behind bars.

It’s not really something that’s relative to this thread though, is it? Or am I missing something?

OP is trying to raise awareness on the fact you can’t just “get someone sectioned” which is an entirely different thing to the authorities neglecting their duty of care with these two cases. Which admittedly I’m also not well versed on.

And for the record, it’s never the families fault. Because you can’t just get someone sectioned…which is OP’s original point.

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 21:59

I don't think I'm on a media man hunt, but sometimes, some people need to be detained for public safety reasons.

It may not be directly relevant to the OP's original posted thread, but it is definitely a closely related point, and should be debatable here.

Barleycat · 27/04/2026 22:04

likelysuspect · 26/04/2026 20:04

Ive had discussions with AMHPs who wont even do the assessment, despite the concerns raised by CAMHS because theres no bed, so no where to put the person if they were to need detainment

Show quote history

The AHMP cant complete the assessment unless they can fill in the address of where pt will be going. If no bed available then they will have to wait till there is.

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 22:06

In such cases, we clearly need closed asylum facilities again. IMO.

Imnotsobadreallyami · 27/04/2026 22:07

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 21:46

@likelysuspect and @FlyingUnicornWings , I don't know a lot about really serious MH cases like Vito Caldocane or Axel Radakanu, but both were clearly deranged and dangerous, and known to the (putative) authorities who failed in their duty of care for the public safety. IM not expert opinion, both should have been behind bars.

Wheee are all those places behind bars supposed to be?

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 22:11

Every county once had an asylum to accommodate the bad and mad who were not criminal, but were regarded as (potentially) criminally dangerous. Perhaps it is the right time to bring them back?

Firefly1987 · 27/04/2026 22:12

likelysuspect · 27/04/2026 21:49

I have no idea what you're talking about now, what do you mean 'what do I want'

I would like people to stop using and thinking of MH detainment as something you 'do' to someone else as another member of the public/family/friend

Its a health service and medical assessment. Completed by assessment by professionals.

Not everyone who hears voices telling them to kill needs detainment either. An example above, and there may be more detail to this, is where the poster says someone was throwing poo around and not eating because the food was poisoned. Very very ill, but probably not detainable on those factors alone.

Just because there is a media man hunt sometimes doesnt mean we have to go along with it

Show quote history

Most people know when someone says "I got someone into rehab, I got someone sectioned, I got someone arrested for drunk driving etc." that they don't mean it 100% literally surely. I mean of course a mental health professional decides it, that's just obvious? Family and friends can know when someone is likely to need it though, because the behaviour gets to a point that it's undeniable.

Youthinkyouareaniconoclast · 27/04/2026 22:15

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 21:59

I don't think I'm on a media man hunt, but sometimes, some people need to be detained for public safety reasons.

It may not be directly relevant to the OP's original posted thread, but it is definitely a closely related point, and should be debatable here.

I strongly disagree.

And this point has been made before - we are discussing language and terminology surrounding the MHA. Not high profile and tragic cases of people with MH issues with violence.

I'm concerned that you seem to be conflating SMI with risk to others; that is simply (and statistically) incorrect. You may benefit from researching this. And the matter is wholly irrelevant to what is being discussed.

If you want to start a separate thread about that topic, why not do so? Because at the moment you are derailing it.

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 22:25

@Youthinkyouareaniconoclast My only SMI (does that mean social media information? I'm guessing it does) is MN, so no. I disagree. If we are only discussing the language around MH issues, then you may as well chat about how many angels can dance on a pin's head... to quote St Thomas Aquinas.

Serencwtch · 27/04/2026 22:27

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 20:18

I think you have an important point here. I accept that there's insufficient capacity within the NHS for MH issues, and that for all our safety it should be increased. But can you put numbers on how much MORE money is needed, and HOW MANY more therapists are required? Even more important, can they deliver? It is quite easy to write, my team are under pressure, we need more xxxxx. But if you don't or can't suggest a better solution, maybe because there really isn't a better or faster fix, then what do you propose?

The regular ordinary tax payer like you, me and your NDN who work every day are already paying massively rising tax bills. I am only moderately sympathetic to people telling me they need more help. A bit too anxious to join a new workplace? Too depressed? At some point, someone needs to point out, in a very loud voice, that sometimes we all have to do shit we don't like or want to do.

Show quote history

There is a very, very big difference between someone with anxiety in a new workplace & a severe mental illness where detention under the mental health act is needed or considered.

I think your post just demonstrates how the drive to reduce the stigma of mental health has done nothing to tackle the stigma of severe mental illness & some ways done harm.

Your comment about needing hospitals to protect everyone's safety is also wrong. People with severe mental illness are extremely vulnerable and far more likely to come to harm from someone else than they are to harm another person.

Youthinkyouareaniconoclast · 27/04/2026 22:28

It means Severe Mental Illness.

Somewhat relevant.

And no, you are wrong about discussing the language used. The knowledgeable posters are citing legal terms, not abstract concepts.

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 22:30

Except when they are Vito Caldocane and murder three innocents on a Saturday night, or Axel Radakanu, and go on a spree kill at a kid's dance class. Both known and identified as dangerous... but not detained.

Youthinkyouareaniconoclast · 27/04/2026 22:31

Serencwtch · 27/04/2026 22:27

There is a very, very big difference between someone with anxiety in a new workplace & a severe mental illness where detention under the mental health act is needed or considered.

I think your post just demonstrates how the drive to reduce the stigma of mental health has done nothing to tackle the stigma of severe mental illness & some ways done harm.

Your comment about needing hospitals to protect everyone's safety is also wrong. People with severe mental illness are extremely vulnerable and far more likely to come to harm from someone else than they are to harm another person.

Show quote history

Brilliantly put @Serencwtch

Serencwtch · 27/04/2026 22:31

Papyrophile · 27/04/2026 22:25

@Youthinkyouareaniconoclast My only SMI (does that mean social media information? I'm guessing it does) is MN, so no. I disagree. If we are only discussing the language around MH issues, then you may as well chat about how many angels can dance on a pin's head... to quote St Thomas Aquinas.

No a severe mental illness (SMI) which are on the SMI register are defined as Schizophrenia, bipolar, schizoaffective & some types of personality disorder (there may be others)