Involuntary Admission(Mental Health Act 2001) Question

Evelynmc

Hi all,

I am thinking of pursuing this route with a family member, this family member will not accept any help and will not listen to anyone trying to help. This is an ongoing issue with over 10 years with this person.

I would like to know, if this route was successful, and the person was taken involuntarily to a mental hospital, How long the person can be kept in the care of the hospital? and Can this person choose to leave the hospital or who decides on how long the involuntary admission order lasts?

Any info would be much appreciated.

Eliot Rosewater

I've moved this to Legal Discussion. If this is the wrong forum, mods, I apologize and won't move a legal Q&A thread over again.

Our man in Havana

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/health/mental_health/admission_to_a_psychiatric_hospital.html

MagicSean

They will be kept as long as they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. They cannot discharge themselves. Involuntary admissions are not easy to get though.

eternal

If this has been going on for ten years then why do something now? If a person was a threat, then surely in the last ten years an incident would have occurred to show them as incapable.

Fe1exams

MagicSean wrote: »

They will be kept as long as they are deemed a threat to themselves or others. They cannot discharge themselves. Involuntary admissions are not easy to get though.

I thought it was 6 months max; or is that just for persons found to not guilty by reason of insanity under the 2006 act.

Our man in Havana

Fe1exams wrote: »

I thought it was 6 months max; or is that just for persons found to not guilty by reason of insanity under the 2006 act.

They must be reviewed every 6 months.

sam34

if they are detained, the first admission order is valid for 21 days, if that's renewed the next is valid for 3 months, the next for 6 months, the next for 12 months.

however, every detained person has a tribunal, which is an independent review process with a non-medical majority on the panel. the tribunal can overturn the detention order on a technicality, such as an error in the paperwork, irrespective of how ill the person is.

other than the tribunal, the only person who can discharge the patient is the treating consultant psychiatrist. a detained patient cannot sign themselves out, and their family can't sign them out.

re the actual detention, the criteria are that they post an immediate and serious risk to self or others. it needs to be quite clear cut and specific, eg a vague "they might hit someone if they were agitated" is unlikely to get past a tribunal. the other detention criteria is that they require treatment which can only be given in hospital and they will deteriorate to a significant degree without this treatment. (that's not a verbatim quote from the act but it's the general gist of it). this requires their judgement to be impaired and their capacity affected.

Evelynmc

eternal wrote: »

If this has been going on for ten years then why do something now? If a person was a threat, then surely in the last ten years an incident would have occurred to show them as incapable.

That was a general remark i made about the situation, i didn't say nothing has been done previously. I could write a book on it so wanted to just keep it as short as possible.

Evelynmc

sam34 wrote: »

if they are detained, the first admission order is valid for 21 days, if that's renewed the next is valid for 3 months, the next for 6 months, the next for 12 months.

however, every detained person has a tribunal, which is an independent review process with a non-medical majority on the panel. the tribunal can overturn the detention order on a technicality, such as an error in the paperwork, irrespective of how ill the person is.

other than the tribunal, the only person who can discharge the patient is the treating consultant psychiatrist. a detained patient cannot sign themselves out, and their family can't sign them out.

re the actual detention, the criteria are that they post an immediate and serious risk to self or others. it needs to be quite clear cut and specific, eg a vague "they might hit someone if they were agitated" is unlikely to get past a tribunal. the other detention criteria is that they require treatment which can only be given in hospital and they will deteriorate to a significant degree without this treatment. (that's not a verbatim quote from the act but it's the general gist of it). this requires their judgement to be impaired and their capacity affected.

Thanks sam34, thats just what i needed. I went about it last Thursday and managed to get everything sorted. It wasn't easy but i got the family member admitted.

There seems to be some confusion though as to who(hospital staff OR Gardai) should detain the patient and bring them in if they aren't willing to go to hospital without having to be physically taken there.

The hospital said they no longer transport the patient and the Gardai said they don't either even though the info on citizens info says otherwise.

In the end the person went themselves with myself and another family member last minute, but we almost had to get the gardai to take them to the hospital, at first the gardai said they could not, then next thing they tell me they can, don't know what thats about but at least it got sorted.

krd

Evelynmc wrote: »

I would like to know, if this route was successful, and the person was taken involuntarily to a mental hospital, How long the person can be kept in the care of the hospital? and Can this person choose to leave the hospital or who decides on how long the involuntary admission order lasts?

You'd really have to read the mental health act 2001. It's really long and comprehensive.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0025/sec0008.html#sec8

If someone is neither a danger to themselves or the public, then they can't be detained. The hospital has to have very solid grounds for an involuntary admission. Any detention will be later reviewed - so they can't lock people up on a whim.

If someone is dancing in the streets and floridly psychotic - and threatening people, then when the guards arrive they will take that person to hospital.

I am thinking of pursuing this route with a family member, this family member will not accept any help and will not listen to anyone trying to help. This is an ongoing issue with over 10 years with this person.

This is not the kind of place to discuss this kind of thing. People used to have family members committed for being mildly eccentric. If someone is a bit odd - or even has mental health problems, it's not grounds for having them involuntarily detained.

You should talk to your GP, talk to the Health Board Mental Health Services. And there's even voluntary groups who may be able to help.

In the old days, all you needed was a concerned family member and a GP, and a person could be involuntarily committed.

MagicSean

Evelynmc wrote: »

Thanks sam34, thats just what i needed. I went about it last Thursday and managed to get everything sorted. It wasn't easy but i got the family member admitted.

There seems to be some confusion though as to who(hospital staff OR Gardai) should detain the patient and bring them in if they aren't willing to go to hospital without having to be physically taken there.

The hospital said they no longer transport the patient and the Gardai said they don't either even though the info on citizens info says otherwise.

In the end the person went themselves with myself and another family member last minute, but we almost had to get the gardai to take them to the hospital, at first the gardai said they could not, then next thing they tell me they can, don't know what thats about but at least it got sorted.

If they have been detained in a station by the Gardaí under the Mental Health Act then a doctor assesses them at the station and if he decides they need to be admitted then the Gardaí will bring the patient to the psych unit. If he has been assessed by a doctor at home then it is up to the HSE to get him there.

maker

You are wanting to deprive someone of this most basic right their freedom. You wouldn't do that if you loved the person. Unfortunately the law will probably let you because the law is an ass. If you come up with a good enough story it will probably let you.

ABajaninCork

maker wrote: »

You are wanting to deprive someone of this most basic right their freedom. You wouldn't do that if you loved the person. Unfortunately the law will probably let you because the law is an ass. If you come up with a good enough story it will probably let you.

Two things: You're commenting on an old thread. Secondly, you clearly have never dealt with someone who has mental health issues. You don't know what you're talking about.

maker

I do know what i'm talking about

ABajaninCork

Then why are you writing nonsense?