header-logo header-logo

13 September 2007 / David Hewitt
Issue: 7288 / Categories: Features , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Treatment shock

Rumours of the death of the “treatability test” have been greatly exaggerated, says David Hewitt

Thanks to a last-minute amendment, the Mental Health Act 2007 (MeHA 2007) will be less radical than many people had feared—at least in the way it deals with medical treatment.

In July 2007, MeHA 2007 received Royal Assent. It will amend the Mental Health Act 1983 (MeHA 1983), probably with effect from late 2008. As expected, it removes the previous “treatability test”, but, perhaps surprisingly, it does not do so entirely.

THE TREATABILITY TEST

At the moment, MeHA 1983 may be used to detain and give compulsory medical treatment to someone suffering from “mental disorder”. MeHA 1983 recognises four categories of mental disorder: mental illness, mental impairment, severe mental impairment and psychopathic disorder (ss 1 and 3); and its definition of “medical treatment” includes “nursing…care, habilitation and rehabilitation under medical supervision” (s 145(1)).
If someone is to be detained for anything other than the short-term, the medical treatment he is to receive in hospital must be “likely to alleviate or

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll