Letter: Castration and the Mental Health Act
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: You are wrong to say that the Mental Health Act Commission has to approve operations of surgical castration (24 September). It has no such responsibility. Its job is to monitor the operation of the 1983 Mental Health Act as it relates to patients detained under the act in hospital. The act provides safeguards for various types of medical treatment for mental disorder (ECT and medication) proposed for detained patients who are either unwilling or unable to give their valid consent.
In addition, it provides safeguards for the undertaking of psychosurgery and the surgical implantation of hormones for the suppression of male sexual drive, where they can be categorised as medical treatments for mental disorder. These apply to any patient for whom they are proposed. The commission administers all these safeguards.
As the law stands, the only time the commission would be statutorily entitled to become involved in any proposal to undertake surgical castration would be in the unlikely event that such a procedure was proposed for a patient detained under the act; and even then such involvement would arise from the commission's general obligations to protect detained patients and not because the act contains any safeguard about this specific procedure in relation to detained patients.
Yours sincerely,
WILLIAM BINGLEY
Chief Executive
Mental Health Act Commission
Nottingham
1 October
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments