Mental Disorder and Legal Control

Bean, Philip

doi:10.1017/cbo9780511735301

Cited by 50 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Critical attention has been paid in particular to the way in which professionals have enacted the powers given to them under mental health legislation (Bean, 1986;Sjostrom, 1997) and changes in legal rules affecting practice, eg, the impact . of legislative changes around informed consent on decision making in psychiatry (Lidz et aI, 1984).…”

Section: An International Convergent Interdisciplinary Interest In Comentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Instead there has been a concentration on the operation of specific procedures and civil sections of the Mental Health Act and on patients detained in high-security forensic settings. With some notable exceptions (eg, Bean, 1986), the study of coercion has been less noteworthy.…”

Section: Cross-cultural Differences About the Social Control Of Dangementioning

confidence: 99%

“…British mental health law in particular with its open-ended clauses and standards has had a tendency towards ad hoc rule enforcement, unquestioned discretionary professional power and the down-playing of the importance of general rules (Bean, 1986). However, it is unlikely that due process would be given equivalent weight in Britain or other European countries, where less cultural significance is given to matters of law and the judiciary than in the US.…”

Section: Cross-cultural Differences About the Social Control Of Dangementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Mental Health Policy and the Politics of Mental Health: a three tier analytical framework

Pilgrim¹,

Rogers²

1999

Policy &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

EnglishMental health policy and the politics of mental health are complex topics, studied by a wide range of academic disciplines using a variety of methodologies and styles of analysis. This article offers a broad unifying analytical framework which includes this range and variety while bringing some order into a field which can overwhelm individual scholars. The framework has three tiers: macro, meso and micro. These refer respectively to global and transhistorical factors; national and cultural factors; and local and personal factors. A case study is outlined (mental health, violence and coercion) to illustrate the utlilty of the framework. In conclusion, its advantages and limits are discussed in relation to interdisciplinarity and transdisciplinarity.

show abstract

Section: An International Convergent Interdisciplinary Interest In Comentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cross-cultural Differences About the Social Control Of Dangementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Cross-cultural Differences About the Social Control Of Dangementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Mental Health Policy and the Politics of Mental Health: a three tier analytical framework

Pilgrim¹,

Rogers²

1999

Policy &Amp; Politics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…the Royal College of Nursing), others (e.g. Bean ) argued that it was an unnecessary addition to mental health legislation. Nevertheless, the Health and Social Care Information Centre (HSCIC) has reported that Section 5(4) accounts for 10% ( n = 1714) of all detentions after admission; that is, 3.4% of all sections implemented during the period 2012–2013 (HSCIC ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section 5(4) (nurse's holding power) of the Mental Health Act 1983: a literature review

Ashmore

2014

Psychiatric Ment Health Nurs

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section 5(4) (nurse's holding power) of the Mental Health Act 1983 permits nurses of the 'prescribed class' to detain an informal inpatient. The patient must already be receiving treatment for mental disorder. The section lasts for up to 6 h. Section 5(4) is over 30 years old; however, there is relatively little literature exploring its use. Existing literature has limited itself to surveys and audits investigating: nurses' opinions of Section 5(4); nurses' knowledge of Section 5(4); and trends associated with the implementation of Section 5(4). The literature review suggests that what is known about the implementation of Section 5(4) is incomplete. For example, there are no accounts of how and why the holding power is implemented from both a nursing and patient perspective. Section 5(4) (nurse's holding power) of the Mental Health Act 1983 in England and Wales accounts for 10% (n = 1714) of all detentions after admission to hospital. It is followed by further detention in 66% of cases and may require nurses to restrain, seclude or closely observe the patient to prevent them harming themselves and/or others. To conduct a literature review of empirical articles concerning the implementation of Section 5(4), a literature search was undertaken in ASSIA, British Nursing Index, Medline, PsycINFO and Lawtel, using a combination of the keywords 'Section 5(4)', 'nurse's holding powers', 'holding powers', 'Mental Health Act 1983', 'MHA', 'compulsory detention', 'formal detention', 'emergency psychiatric interventions', 'containment interventions' and 'involuntary commitment'. Twenty-five articles were included in the review. Existing literature has focused on surveys and audits investigating: nurses' opinions of Section 5(4); nurses' knowledge of Section 5(4); and trends associated with the implementation of Section 5(4). While this literature has provided some insights into the implementation of Section 5(4), it is clear that what is known about its use is incomplete. Further research is required to examine a number of areas, for example, how and why the section is implemented.

show abstract

“…Yet beginning in the 1970s, legislation establishing psychosurgery review boards in mental hospitals was either contemplated or passed in Oregon, Ontario, and Great Britain (Grimm 1980;Legal Task Force 1979;Bean 1986). A 1976 California statute required a review board composed of three physicians to vet applications for psychosurgery from voluntary, competent, noninstitutionalized patients (Pizzulli 1980: 374).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Psychosurgery and the Abuse of Psychiatric Authority in Ontario

Simmons¹

1987

Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past two decades political and legal decisions have sharply curtailed psychiatric authority. One area in which psychiatric authority has been most limited is psychosurgery. This paper uses archival evidence from Ontario to show how psychiatrists ordered and administered psychosurgery for a wide variety of reasons. In some cases psychosurgery was administered to ease staffing problems, for experimental purposes, or simply out of sheer curiosity. Often the consent of patients or relatives was not obtained. This egregious abuse of psychiatric authority contributed to the critical movement against psychiatry and to strict laws limiting and sometimes banning resort to psychosurgery.

show abstract

Mental Disorder and Legal Control

Cited by 50 publications

References 0 publications

Mental Health Policy and the Politics of Mental Health: a three tier analytical framework

Mental Health Policy and the Politics of Mental Health: a three tier analytical framework

Section 5(4) (nurse's holding power) of the Mental Health Act 1983: a literature review

Psychosurgery and the Abuse of Psychiatric Authority in Ontario

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About