Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T20:33:22.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

[No Title]

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Alan C. Gibson*
Affiliation:
Late Member Mental Health Review Tribunal, Woking, c/o Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave Square, London SW1X 8PG
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
The columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2009

Shortcomings of consultant psychiatrists representing their responsible authority at mental health review tribunals are clear (Reference Nimmagadda and JonesNimmagadda & Jones, 2008).

The Mental Health Act does not stipulate that the responsible medical officer must attend the tribunal, and, not uncommonly, the task is delegated to a junior doctor; occasionally, this is a senior house officer, who knows little psychiatry and nothing of the Mental Health Act. Such individuals are easy prey for solicitors representing patients, and if they (the doctors) are persuaded to say that the patient does not have a mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants further detention, the tribunal has little choice but to discharge the patient from hospital, whatever their reservations about the case.

It seems to me vitally important that the responsible medical officer is responsible and attends the tribunal, as he is the most skilled in protecting the responsible authorities’ best interests.

References

Nimmagadda, S. & Jones, C. N. (2008) Consultant psychiatrists' knowledge of their role as representatives of the responsible authority at mental health review tribunals. Psychiatric Bulletin, 32, 366369.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.