Ask The Masked AMHP for the answers to your thorny MHA
related problems. He might know the answer. Or not.
The Masked AMHP always tries to assist people, whether
professionals or patients, who ask for assistance or advice. However, I cannot
guarantee that my advice is definitive.
Debbie, who was an inpatient detained under Sec.3 MHA,
writes to the Masked AMHP:
Debbie:
I read your blog to get advice about my tribunal, which
is tomorrow. I wondered if you have any further advice as to how I can win and
how to present myself, as I am told by the solicitor that this will be most of
the problem.
Masked AMHP:
Look as smart and "together" as possible in the
circumstances. Look attentive during the tribunal itself. It's probably better
to let your solicitor lead and basically keep as quiet as possible. Don't
interrupt when others are speaking, even if you feel they're wrong in what they
are saying. Take notes, then ask your solicitor to raise your concerns on your
behalf.
Around a fifth of appeals result in the section being
lifted, so it's always worth appealing.
Debbie:
Thanks. Do you happen to know what chance someone has if
they have been on 2 weeks consecutive leave and are being told they do not need
to be in hospital? Because I was told by the psychiatrist that I was being
discharged after the Sec.117 meeting, however as the care coordinator objected
at the meeting and said she wanted me put on a CTO I was not discharged after
all. How easy is it to get the hospital managers to discharge you?
Masked AMHP:
Managers are less likely to discharge than Tribunals.
Debbie:
OK thanks, but if the tribunal fails then is it worth
trying?
Masked AMHP:
Normally there is a managers meeting, then if they don't
discharge, there is a tribunal. So you get two chances to appeal against Sec.3.
Debbie:
Thanks, I won the tribunal!!!! I got a deferred discharge.
The Nearest Relative of a patient detained under
Sec.37/41 writes concerning discharge and aftercare arrangements:
My wife was detained after being sentenced for
manslaughter due to diminished responsibility. The offence occurred during
a severe depressive episode which came about as a result of a short,
intensely stressful, period which cannot be repeated. Since the
‘index offence’ 3 years ago, she has been completely symptom-free.
Before the depression leading to the index offence, her
life was settled, stable and secure. I fully support her in all she wants
to do. We have a stable and relaxed home life, we have no money worries and
have a large and very supportive circle of friends. Her medication has
been refined since she has been in hospital; it is effective and well tolerated
and she willingly accepts that she will have to take it for the rest of her
life. We feel that we don’t need support from social services; we don’t
need help with housing, medication, money, training, jobs (we are both
retired), or with independent living.
As you say in your article, a Sec.117 meeting must be
held for patients due to be discharged from s.37. Is this aftercare compulsory?
Can she refuse any Sec.117 help and support? Would a refusal or rejection
of support jeopardise her discharge?
The Masked AMHP replies:
In the specific case of your wife, as she is currently
detained under Sec.37/41, she can only be released with the consent of the Home
Secretary, and she would be subject to conditional discharge. Although there
would still be entitlement to Sec.117 aftercare, to a certain extent this is
trumped by the Sec.37/41. Discharge conditions would be likely to include
taking medication, seeing her psychiatrist and community social supervisor, as
well as other possible conditions, such as residing in a particular place. I
would imagine that if she has a supportive environment to return to, this would
be a plus for her, and I am sure that discharge plans would take into account
what is available for her. However, by the nature of Sec.37/41, any eventual
conditions could not be refused.
In time, after reviews, she may be able to be discharged
from Sec.37/41.
And finally, two care coordinators ask questions relating
to capacity and treatment:
Care coordinator 1:
We currently have a lady who has been in hospital for a
year under Sec.3. Her delusional beliefs have not responded to treatment.
As part of planning for her discharge she has been assessed as not having capacity
to decide where she lives. A best interest meeting has been held. We have identified
residential placements, but she has refused to even look at them, because of
her delusional beliefs. What authority do we have to move her? A CTO
relies on some level of agreement, and she is content to remain where she is,
and not accepting of need for any medication or support following discharge.
The Masked AMHP replies:
You could try placing her in a prospective care home
under extended Sec.17 leave. That way, it could be argued she is still an
inpatient in the hospital in which she seems happy to remain. If she settles,
you could then consider a CTO or Guardianship. Alternatively, if she continues
to maintain she wants to leave, but it is considered to be in her best
interests to remain, you could try a combination of CTO or Guardianship plus possibly
a Deprivation of Liberty authorisation.
Care coordinator 2:
I am the care coordinator of a patient recently admitted
informally to hospital. She has a 5 year history of possible paranoid
schizophrenia. She has previously been detained under Sec.3 and has in the past
been on a CTO.
She does not believe she has a psychotic illness and
believes that there are bugs in her flat and possibly implanted in her
body.
I have been working with her since last year; she has
been well and in all other areas functioning and capacity are not affected. She
is willing to continue on antipsychotic medication as she feels it does benefit
her.
There are discussions about her capacity regarding
treatment with some stating that because she denies having
schizophrenia/psychosis how can she have capacity to decide what
medication she should take. I argue that she accepts psychiatric medication and
acknowledges it does help alleviate some of her symptoms.
I suppose the question is, can have someone have capacity
to agree to treatment for a mental illness if they do not believe they have a
mental illness? Even if they are given information, understand, can weigh it up
and communicate their point of view?
The Masked AMHP replies:
I guess that if the patient accepts that there are
benefits to the medication they are taking, even if they deny they have a
specific diagnosis, then they could be regarded as having the capacity to agree
to treatment. They may on some level or other recognise there is a disorder,
even if they do not agree what that is. Even if they lack capacity, if they are
amenable to accepting treatment, then I can't see there's a problem.
Consider a hypothetical case of an elderly person with
dementia who clearly lacks capacity, but is accepting of medication for both
physical and mental problems. If it is in their best interests, then there
should not need to be any formal legal framework for treatment, as it can be
managed within the guidelines of the Mental Capacity Act.
