Mental health patients being denied human rights in court

[HollyHB]

From www.independent.co.uk/
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.

Thanks Julie

Bit at it being a northern colloquialism too! Also lived in merseyside, cheshire and Yorkshire and the only people who use that term are the same small minded type of people who use other "colloquialisms" (that I won't type) for different nationalities and certain types of takeaway food. It's not a common term among civilised people.

Spero wrote: As she was sectioned for a severe mental illness, it may well be that her lawyer did not meet her in person.

Her own lawyer who actually represents her, Stefano Oliva, disputes that her mental illness was severe. He argued it to be merely a "panic attack". The Official queen counsel appointed by the other side did not have a legal determination before boycotting any meeting with his or her client.

Even if she were severely ill her lawyer should have made that judgment for himself or herself, in person. Not relied on the allegations of the hostile party. The issue is not what the outcome of her assertion of mild illness would have been, the issue is that it was never allowed to be made.

Of course her illness may have become severe purely iatrogenically, we will likely never know because justice was perverted.

You do not get sectioned for a "panic attack". You do not even get sectioned even if you attempt suicide and beg to be sectioned. In order to be sectioned and then kept in beyond the standard 28 days you have to be severely ill.

'Mental' is derogatory. It means 'crazy' and it is a colloquialism in that capacity.

Jeez, thank OP, now I know I'm mental

O of course. I do apologise. How silly of me to think that her diagnosis of severe mental illness made by doctors could stand against the assertions of her lawyer?

Really Holly? Really? this is the best you can do?

But given you think "mental" is an acceptable colloquialism I don't you know much about mental illness let alone the severe ones

Well yes, perhaps an apology from the OP instead of a defensive response would have been more appropriate.

But we so plainly don't live in an ideal world. Funding for essential child protection and mental health services has been cut to the bone and no doubt will be cut still further.

I am not prepared to accept that this is way things are because of lack of funding.

The huge caseloads aren't helping, and are probably contributing to the feeling of "next...?" that I get from them. The individuals aren't my issue. I don't hold the opinion that people are inherently bad or corrupt. More that the system has too many cracks, and that decision makers need to change things.

And WHY is the other side the 'hostile' party?

Hostile to what?

WHY do some people think there is any point or worth in constructing this narrative that there simply must be some malicious motive behind these court proceedings.

What malicious motive? The (ficitious) 'cash bounty' that would be paid for this baby?

I don't know anything about the law but I have seen more than one psychotic episode and there would have been no benefit in anybody trying to engage the patient in any kind of important conversation to be honest, for weeks and weeks.
If you caught a seemingly lucid moment, it may not have represented their usual stance and may have indeed given you entirely the wrong opinion as to their true wishes.
Sometimes people are not well enough to speak for themselves, no matter how intelligent they may be.

LittleDoris I agree that lack of funding is not the only issue.

But it is a pretty massive part of the problem and unless this is tackled I can't see much improvement any time soon.

I am not prepared to accept that this is way things are because of lack of funding.

Sorry, that reads entirely NOT how I intended it to.

I meant that we cannot just do nothing about it because the funding is being cut.

"I meant that we cannot just do nothing about it because the funding is being cut."

Totally agree. Not sure what can be done though? We really need mental health services to be taken more seriously, given more funding and not to tie the hands of the people trying to work in those areas.

I completely agree.

We don't just give up because the situation is so dire.

But such a pity that so much time and energy has to be diverted dealing with those who peddle their conspiracy theories over and above any real care for the individuals who suffer.

Holly, both me and murder have said that as people who do suffer with mental illness, we agree with this decision. Is there any reason why you are refusing to engage with us and only arguing with spero and discussing the Italian woman?

Littledoris wrote: If someone is incapable of answering the question "do you want to speak in court?" then of course they shouldn't be taken to court, but we should still be asking the question.

Thank you. That is a key point. The question needs to be asked, the offer made, regardless of all other considerations. And in the case of Alessandra Pacchieri it wasn't. She wasn't even notified that there was an upcoming court proceeding wherein a hostile party was seeking to deprive her of the right to make her own decision about surgery.

Maybe we're just too "mental" Beyond

Because of course understanding the question of would you like to go to court means they can understand what is actually being discussed in court.

She suffers an illness known to cause delusions, has it occurred to you that it might actually be harmful to her to have been told about this court?

If you asked a number of my clients if they had wanted to go to court they would have said 'yes please'! But on the advice of THEIR DOCTORS they were not taken to court because it was not possible to secure their safety or the safety of others they came into contact with.

If you want to volunteer to escort someone to court, for example who has fantasised about killing her child with scissors and then put that fanatasy into action, be my guest.

'Mental illness' covers a vast spectrum of behaviour and thought processes, from the quirky to the utterly delusional and dangerous.

Which is why I wanted you at the outset to clarify what you meant by someone being accused of 'being mental'.

This is an area I think we leave up to the doctors who are qualified to diagnose and recommend what is safe and practicable for THEIR patients.

Hear hear Spero.
Doctors know best in a hospital. It is not a conspiracy.
Lawyers know best in a Court. It is not a conspiracy.

'Mental illness' covers a vast spectrum of behaviour and thought processes, from the quirky to the utterly delusional and dangerous.

But why are we heading straight for the lowest common denominator.

It really scares me that a man or woman (albeit a fully qualified doctor) who has a huge caseload, who is working long hours in a stressful job, is being trusted to say if someone is capable or not.

There is no impartiality either. If a senior doctor makes a decison, is anyone going to speak out if they disagree? In an ideal world, yes, in ther real world, the other hcps have their own huge case loads and long hours and they are not going to undermine their senior.

And MP's should fight in Westminster, for things they and they alone can change.

The lowest deniminator comes from the fact she was SECTIONED. You really can't get much lower than that on the mental scale.

*denominator

Doctors know best in a hospital. It is not a conspiracy.
Lawyers know best in a Court. It is not a conspiracy.

I don't believe in conspiracies. But this is not always true. There are huge cracks. Huge.

LittleDoris, we head to the lowest common denominator because that is the safest place to be if you are rushed off your feet and have five minutes to make a decision before you have another meeting or have to write a report or do another home visit etc etc.

Hence a lack of thoughtful and flexible individual reponses. Hence a real risk that people get treated in ways which are not necessarily the most atuned to their needs.

So just how do we make this better if there is no money for more professionals to have more time to make better diagnoses more quickly and provide more senstive treatment more effectively?