BMJ 1995;310:1196-1197 (6 May)

Letters

New Zealand's system has much to offer

EDITOR,--Caroline Bradley and colleagues' audit of section 2 of the Mental Health Act suggests that the current appeals procedure is "not a satisfactory way of protecting the civil liberties of patients."1 Much more equitable (although more costly) would be a routine appeals procedure, based on a combination of the managers' hearing and the review tribunal. A regular weekly session devoted to reviewing people detained under the Mental Health Act, particularly in the inner London areas where up to 90% of patients are so detained, would be most effective. When in New Zealand, in 1990, I was most impressed by the fact that a judge was available in the hospital every Friday afternoon and reviewed all detentions as required. Is there any likelihood of such experienced legal minds being routinely available in Britain?

Consultant psychiatrist Division of Psychiatry, Hackney Hospital, London E9 6BE

T H Turner 

  1. Bradley C, Marshall M, Gath D. Why . . . [Full text of this article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to StumbleUpon StumbleUpon   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Article

Why do so few patients appeal against detention under section 2 of the mental health act?
Caroline Bradley, Max Marshall, and Dennis Gath
BMJ 1995 310: 364-367. [Abstract] [Full Text]

Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ