Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-18T07:16:50.984Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Authors' reply

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

J. Dawson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Law, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand. Email: john.dawson@stonebow.otago.ac.nz
G. Szmukler
Affiliation:
Institute of Psychiatry, King's College, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2007 

Dr Buchanan notes that we allow an exception to ‘pure’ incapacity principles where a serious offence has been committed by a person with a mental disorder. We would allow the involuntary treatment of this narrowly defined subgroup of forensic patients under certain conditions, even if they regained capacity, to prevent harm to others. Buchanan believes this would discriminate unfairly between these patients and non-forensic patients. We are not convinced, however, that this would involve unjustified discrimination, because the commission of a serious offence constitutes a significant difference between their positions.

Nevertheless, Dr Buchanan's suggestion that convicted offenders might be given a choice, on disposition from the court, of accepting imprisonment or consenting to treatment in hospital deserves serious consideration. However, we think a time limit should still be placed on the period during which a patient could be treated in hospital on this basis. That time would be proportionate to the seriousness of their offence. Otherwise, the patient who accepts hospitalisation and treatment initially, but later refuses treatment when they regain capacity, would face return to court for resentencing for an indeterminate period. Or, if the patient were to make a rapid recovery with treatment, would discharge very soon after a serious offence be politically acceptable?

Professor Maden, as we understand it, fears that the legislation we propose would not reduce homicides by people with mental illness, but we have little knowledge of the effect of mental health laws on rates of serious offending. What is most likely to reduce rates of violence is early access to effective treatment. Our proposal would allow involuntary treatment for the right reasons at the right time, and it may permit intervention sooner than under the 1983 Act. Some people with personality disorders who pose a risk of harm to others may not meet our incapacity test, and the transitional position of such persons who are already detained in our mental health facilities would have to be addressed. However, on balance, we think our proposals are likely to reduce violence overall, by allowing earlier access to effective treatment for persons who are incapacitated, regardless of the cause.

References

EDITED BY KIRIAKOS XENITIDIS and COLIN CAMPBELL

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.