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.

I think it depends on the person. When my sister was sectioned, severely ill but lucid for some periods of time iyswim, she may have been in a fit state to be able to speak in court. She would also, imo, have needed representation as although she could speak in court, she couldn't have spoken fully or thoroughly enough for it actually to be useful. The second time she was sectioned, she absolutely was in no fit state to represent herself and would have posed a danger as well. I think the cases much each be decided individually- individuals should all have allowances made to ensure that, for as many as possible, they can speak. However, many patients who have been sectioned wont be able to, so it shouldn't be a hard rule, but one which allows for differentiation.

"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."

That's where you need multiple doctors to agree independently, rather than putting all the onus on one.

I don't think we are heading for lowest common denominator, I imagine the majority of mental health patients have to go to court alone and without advocacy due to lack of funds/lack of help. But they don't make such a good news story.

The difference between a 'crack' and a 'conspiracy' is also huge.

And hugely important. Its the difference between deliberate sadistic cruelty or utter corruption for financial motives - about which I don't think we can do anything much - and a system which is creaking but which we can work to improve because everyone genuinely wants to.

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

From my experience (sister has been sectioned twice, so very little experience in the scheme of things) even if you have been sectioned, the levels of severity can differ. Obviously, they will be quite extreme (as they've been sectioned in the first place) but some may be more extreme than others.

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.

Would a mother who is about to lose her child think its the safest place to be? One size does not fit all. It saddens me that this is the reality.

As for how to change it, I haven't a clue. I am not educated enough. But mental health being taken more seriously would be a good start. An any change will have to come from the top, as I said, I don't think this is the fault of those on the front line.

There are huge cracks, but a line has to be drawn in the sand to protect the majority. Personally I think allowing a mentally impaired person to stand for themselves in Court just 72 hours after suffering (possibly still suffering) and episode isn't putting 'their' side forward. There are many ways we could change the laws here, but scaremongering among the public isn't one of them. You can only change that from Westminster and with evidence to prove your way is a better way for the majority.

Interestingly the worst mental health doctor I've ever been under the care of, one who I saw when I was suicidal, is one I think the OP would probably have approved of.

So I do agree there are cracks, but that's something that can be helped by having more people involved so it doesn't just come down to the say so of one individual. From what I know, when it comes to severe mental illness they don't leave it down to just one doctor, it's usually a team.

I agree Spero. And I really hope I am not coming across as though I am buying into a conspiracy.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability wrote: ... both me and murder have said that as people who do suffer with mxxxxx illness, we agree with this decision. Is there any reason why you are refusing to engage with us

I'm not disagreeing with the decision to order the C-Section. Quite possibly it was the correct decision, I couldn't possibly know either way. My own son was born by C-Section by the way.

I am strongly disagreeing with the way in which the decision was made. I propose that Alessandra was and still is being denied (what the Americans would call) "due process" and that is much more serious than the merits of the case itself. The rottenness to the core of that court and it's secret deceitful process is far more important than the merits of the Pacchieri case. The case is a highly visible symptom of the disease.

That the process is secret and deceitful is illustrated in that it was reportedly ordered that she not be promptly told of her conviction of being of severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder so she forfeited the right to self-determination as to contemplated surgery.

I think that should depend upon whether the mental health issues have a consequence of the person nog being able to make appropriate decisions. Someone suffering depression may be more than able to make decisions and represent themselves well as may many other mental health problems. The question is to what extent does their illness affect their ability to make decisions and I believe that this is what needs to be accessed and whether their condition is stable.

You aren't reading what we've said, we've never commented on whether the c-section was right, no idea on that, it's physical/medical not related to mental health. We've been commenting on whether she should have gone to court or been told about court. Both agree that severe mental illness could mean that going to court or even knowing about it is not necessarily in her best interests, possibly even detrimental to her mental health (which should be priority).

I have a close friend who has a very severe psychotic illness. I supported her through reporting to the police that she had been raped by a nurse while under section. The police basically rolled their eyes and laughed at her. It was hideous.

On the other hand, I was not convinced myself that the incident had actually happened, and I could see that it would be possible to have her as a credible witness in front of a jury. Don't get me wrong - I am almost certain that she has been horribly abused while psychotic; I have seen her bloodstained and bruised, with torn clothing, and unable to account for what has happened to her. She is intensely vulnerable while psychotic and I think that any number of people may have abused her. But she communicates her pain and distress through wild and paranoid allegations, and I truly don't know what to do with that.

The answer, in her case, can't be to expect her to present her own case within our current system. It must be through greater provision of sensitive support and skilled advocacy, surely.

Lots of people never speak in court during their court cases do they? That doesn't mean their wishes and opinions are ignored. There might be a written statement out in, or the lawyers conveys their views and wishes to the judge.

It strikes me as unfair to assume Pacchieri's QC 'boycotted' a meeting with her-we don't know what the QC knew, did, or said or why.

What murder said.

And don't think that the smartarse "mxxxxx" or lack of apology have gone unnoticed either.

Sorry, put in not out in

That the process is secret and deceitful is illustrated in that it was reportedly ordered that she not be promptly told of her conviction of being of severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder so she forfeited the right to self-determination as to contemplated surgery.

If both my legs are bitten off by an angry bear, I haven't 'forfeited' my right to run the London Marathon. I am incapable of so doing.

someone in a serious delusional state may have no capacity whatsoever to 'self determine'.

Why do you blame the 'process' as 'secret and deceitful' when she was seriously mentally ill?

O wait, of course you don't accept that. Because a lawyer said it was just an itty bitty old panic attack.

Maryz! Courtesy is our watchword!

Although I can appreciate how difficult this is sometimes.

Politeness is the virtue of kings Maryz

MurderOfGoths wrote: But given you think "mental" is an acceptable colloquialism I don't you know much about mental illness ...
LittleDoris: Well yes, perhaps an apology from the OP instead of a defensive response would have been more appropriate.

I agree I don't know much about any kind of illness, and I apologise unreservedly for using a word found to be offensive. Which is why, in a previous message I substituted a longer form (being of severely impaired capacity to make sound decisions due to a psychological disorder) and will continue so to do. I do seem to be singled out for using the word in question I might add.

Stay with us, mary < firm upper arm grip >

Maryz, what I wanted to post, but decided not to (being all grown up and responsible an ting for 2014)!