Clause 30
Mental Health Bill [Lords]
9:30 am
Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)
I got that paragraph from my good right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), in one of his lighter moments.
We need to make sure that, when used, ECT is used for the best therapeutic benefit of the young person in extremis when there are no alternatives and when, ultimately, their condition could be life threatening. It is important that such an invasive treatment, with its potential psychological as well as cognitive adverse effects, is not imposed against the will of a young person with decision-making capacity.
The amendment would provide for a second opinion under the second opinion approved doctor system for both formal and informal patients. That would go some way towards achieving the safeguard. The amendment would also require that either the young person’s doctor or the SOAD is a child and adolescent practitioner. Again, carrying on last Tuesday’s debate about the importance of age-appropriate treatment carried out by age-appropriate qualified practitioners, that is more essential in the case of extreme forms of treatment.
The joint scrutiny Committee recognised the importance of using specialist clinical knowledge when working with children and young people. Members of that Committee agreed with the ECT safeguards provided for under-16s in the draft Mental Health Bill, but considered that they should be extended to 16 and 17-year-olds. We are recognising that in extremis ECT may ultimately be a suitable treatment for a child. I am talking about a small number of cases. It is absolutely essential that proper safeguards are attached to the treatment for the benefit of the child and the parent who may have decision-making powers for that child.