Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
EDITOR This view is supported by the results of a survey that we
conducted last year, which entailed sending a brief questionnaire to
every consultant psychiatrist in England and Wales. The questionnaire provided background information on what at that point was known about
the proposals.2
We mailed the questionnaire to 2655 consultant psychiatrists and
received 1171 (44%) replies. Overall, 735 (62%) responded that they
were against the plans, 230 (20%) supported them, and 214 (18%) said
that they were unsure about them. In addition to this, a substantial
minority (363 (31%)) said that they would be prepared to refuse to
implement this legislation, and 625 (53%) wrote additional comments in
a space provided on the form. The most frequent comment was that more
information was needed before a clear view about the proposals could be
reached. Many expressed concerns about the reliability and validity of
this diagnosis. Others felt the proposals were oppressive and
antitherapeutic and would result in psychiatrists becoming
increasingly involved in the process of social control. Few
comments in favour of reviewable detention were made.
At a time when psychiatrists and other healthcare professionals
are rightly being encouraged to practice evidence based medicine, evidence concerning the management of people who are diagnosed as
having personality disorders remains largely absent. What we do know is
that discrete personality disorders do not exist and that levels of
agreement between clinicians about who should be classified in this way
are often no better than chance.
3 4
Antisocial
personality traits tend to persist, and no interventions have been
shown to change their course.5 Although society has a
right to be protected from those who commit violent offences, the moral
basis for allowing the detention of those who have not been convicted
of a crime is as questionable as the evidence to suggest that the
medical profession can be involved in their "treatment."
In his editorial Szmukler expressed concerns about
government plans to introduce legislation that would enable the preventative detention of people classified as having a dangerous severe personality disorder.1 We believe that
most psychiatrists in Britain share these concerns.
Imperial College, St Mary's Campus, London W2 1PD
m.crawford{at}ic.ac.uk
W Hopkins
Edgware Community Hospital, Middlesex HA8 0AD
P Thomas
Bradford Community Health Trust, Bradford BD7 3EG
J Moncreiff
Charing Cross Hospital, London W6 8RP
J Bindman
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, London SE5
8AZ
A J Gray
St Anne's Orchard, Malvern, Worcestershire WR14
4EZ
| 1. |
Szmukler G.
A new mental health (and public protection) act.
BMJ
2001;
322:
2-3 |
| 2. | Home Office, Department of Health. Managing dangerous people with severe personality disorder. London: Stationery Office, 1999. |
| 3. | Livesley WJ, Jackson DN, Schroeder ML. Factorial structure of traits delineating personality disorders in clinical and general population samples. J Abnorm Psychol 1992; 101: 432-440[CrossRef][Medline]. |
| 4. | Moran P. Should psychiatrists treat personality disorders? London: King's College, University of London, 2000. (Maudsley discussion paper No 7.) |
| 5. | Black DW, Baumgard CH, Bell SE. A 1- to 45-year follow-up of 71 men with antisocial personality disorder. Comprehensive Psychiatry 1995; 36: 130-140[CrossRef][Medline]. |
Israeli students are refusing to perform intimate examinations on anaesthetised women without their informed consent.