Clause 1
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
11:00 am
John Pugh (Shadow Minister, Health; Southport, Liberal Democrat)
I want to take the opportunity to ask the Minister a few questions. I understand that the new definition of “mental disorder” is a heck of a lot better than what was in the Mental Health Act 1983. Having read that Act with care, I do not object to the change. The new definition is more colloquial and less misleading. The previous one dwelt on behavioural issues and confused a number of causally quite different conditions.
Specifically, under the definition, “mental disorder” appears to be something that results from illness rather than from any structural impairment of the brainor genetic deficiency. It is very helpful to draw that distinction. Lord Rix in the House of Lords was particularly pleased to see references to mental impairment disappear.
One assumes that by “mental disorder” one simply means the common neuroses; the psychoses, of which the symptoms are normally delusory states or hallucinations; bipolar disorder; personality disorder, which is understood in a wider context; and psychopathy. There are certain organic conditions, such as Korsakov psychosis and the like, which are definitely a consequence of the structural impairment of the brain in one way or another. Are they included in the definition of mental disorder? After all, we are not in an area in which there is absolute clarity. Even now, there are debates about whether schizophrenia is one condition or several. If there is a mental disorder that results from structural damage and is not genetic or inborn, is that included as a mental disorder in the Bill or not?
I have a constituent whose behaviour causes great concern. His parents are extraordinarily worried about him. He cannot get treatment from the health service because, although his behaviour is aberrant in many respects, it is a product of physical damage to the brain as a result of an accident, and not something inborn or a genuine impairment that he started off life with.