Letter: A treatment order that could mean a family's safety
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your report of the substantial award by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board to the mother of a schizophrenic who attacked her (27 January) is opportune. The case of Jonathan Morrell (now a patient in Rampton Special Hospital under the Mental Health Act 1983) sits directly alongside the case of Ben Silcock, who apparently suffered from a mental illness and jumped into the lion enclosure in London Zoo.
The Silcock case gave rise to comment by the Secretary of State for Health, Virginia Bottomley, regarding the possible need for amendment of the Mental Health Act 1983 towards the provision of some form of coercive treatment in the community. The Royal College of Psychiatrists has recently published a paper in favour of introduction of a 'Community Supervision Order' under the Act. Such an order would aim to provide a degree of coercion of seriously mentally ill patients to continue medication when not in hospital, thereby avoiding recurring relapses and readmissions.
Although it may be that some patients fail to receive treatment in the community as a result of their own reticence, it is also clear that infringement of civil rights could become an (apparently) necessary corollary of lack of adequate community psychiatric resources. Substantial patient support is often a sufficient, and indeed better, basis for encouraging mentally ill patients to continue medication than is compulsion through legislation.
Further, where a patient is recognised to be violent, or otherwise difficult, the issue is often not one of 'the refusing patient' but of 'the refusing doctor'. Hence, forensic psychiatry as a sub-speciality deals with patients whom general psychiatrists commonly reject, even though they are seriously mentally ill. Provision of compulsory community treatment would not reverse this tendency within general psychiatric services.
What is needed is substantial community psychiatric resources with recognition that behaviourally disordered patients warrant care as much as do patients at risk of harming only themselves.
Yours faithfully,
NIGEL EASTMAN
Head and Senior Lecturer
Section of Forensic Psychiatry
St George's Hospital
Medical School
London, SW17
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments