This site is intended for health professionals only

Fundamentally flawed mental health bill could put the public at risk

23 March 2007

Share this article

The new mental health legislation is “fundamentally flawed” and could actually increase the risk to the public, according to an editorial in today’s (Friday 23 March) British Medical Journal (New mental health legislation. BMJ:334;596-7).

The Mental Health Bill, which is currently progressing through Parliament, makes a number of amendments to the Mental Health Act 1983.

Writing in the BMJ, Dr John Crichton and Dr Darjee note certain aspects of the proposed legislation that cause them concern. The Bill simplifies the criteria for mental disorder and they highlight in particular the identification of sexual deviance as a category where treatment should be compulsory. There is provision for supervised community treatment but, say the authors, it lacks the appropriate safeguards.

The group of people with the responsibility for the detention of patients is widened, despite what Drs Crichton and Darjee say is a lack of clear guidance detailing how this would work in practice. And the test that determines whether a patient should be detained is being replaced with a broader one, as the old test was seen to limit the ability to detain patients.

The authors argue that the government is focusing too much on public safety and that, paradoxically, will increase the risk to the public. They also say the proposed legislation is so broad it would label most violent offenders as having a mental disorder. It would therefore place them within the boundary of needing compulsory psychiatric treatment.

They ask: “What prisoner will engage in an anger management course or a sex offender programme with the prospect of compulsory indefinite detention and transfer to a secure psychiatric hospital? What potential patient with a violent thought will dare seek help from a doctor?”

They go on to argue that the rate of violence in those with mental disorders actually mirrors the rate of violence of those in the same social group. Treating violent and sexual offenders medically is, they say, unlikely to make them change their ways unless the aim is a very long preventative detention.

The writers agree the best way for mental health to protect the public is the provision of comprehensive services, but say the government needs to be realistic about what can be offered.

They point to Scotland, where the Executive has successfully implemented mental health legislation after keeping the focus on care and treatment. Yet in England and Wales, new mental health legislation has faltered because of a confusion of purpose. They say mental health services should be seen as a support for criminal justice agencies and the law when appropriate and conclude: “Efforts for reform will fail if mental health legislation is wrongly identified as a principal mechanism for enhancing public safety”.

To see the full paper, visit: