I support this amendment. There is a tendency to think of these proposals as another imminent job creation scheme for doctors. That is exactly how people addressed the second-opinion appointed doctor issue in 1983; it was not welcomed by many. In fact, however, it has been a tremendous safeguard in the Mental Health Act, and has led to senior doctors, who were previously godlike, understanding that they must think long and hard about the best interests of the patient when they are providing care for someone without capacity, as in this case, or who is resisting treatment.
It has led to a tremendously different culture and feel to how we support those with mental health problems. In spite of the amendment requiring resources, which I do not deny, it would give equivalent safeguards and support good practice already in effect in many institutions caring for those with profound learning disabilities and dementia. It would be a positive move.
Mental Health Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Murphy
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 29 January 2007.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Mental Health Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
689 c107-8 Session
2006-07Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 11:41:30 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373793
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373793
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_373793