The recent editorial on proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act (MHA) sparked significant reflection on the delicate balance the act strives to maintain between individual liberty and the state’s duty to protect vulnerable people. The criteria for detention under the MHA act as a threshold, triggering the state’s responsibilities both to prevent harm and to provide care and support during and after detention. While debates persist on whether the current criteria for detention are appropriately balanced, it’s important to recognize that the act’s existing provisions are designed to offer equitable support to all individuals in need.
The draft bill, however, proposes a much higher threshold for detention, particularly for those who have not committed a crime. While this shift may reduce the trauma of detention for many, it also risks denying vulnerable individuals the positive care and protection they need—unless they become involved in the criminal justice system. This shift presents an unsettling paradox: it may push people into the criminal justice system in order to receive help, which is neither a less restrictive approach nor a more caring one for those in need of support. This potential for a perverse incentive, along with the overlooked equality implications, demands further scrutiny.
Michael Chalmers, Associate Director of Mental Health Law at the North London NHS Foundation Trust, underscores the complexity of balancing the mental health system’s duty of care with the limitations of the new bill’s proposals. Without adequate resources, however, the reforms risk being ineffective, regardless of their well-intentioned aims.
As Richard Braham, a social worker, points out, the proposed reforms will only succeed if they are backed by sufficient funding. Working within an NHS trust to support people in the aftermath of a first episode of psychosis, Braham highlights the systemic issues that prevent quality care from being delivered: insufficient beds, overwhelming caseloads, low staff retention, and the absence of necessary reforms that address real care needs.
Braham further notes that while certain areas of the system receive more funding, leading to better care, this is not a result of superior skills or training but rather because those teams are given the resources they need. For example, he argues that banning the use of police cells as places of safety in the absence of alternative facilities, such as assessment suites, will lead to inadequate care. The strain on staff prevents them from building the essential relationships with patients that are necessary for meaningful care, including collaborative care planning. While it is one thing to legislate for higher standards, it is another entirely to secure the resources to meet them.
Dr. William Hall, a NHS consultant psychiatrist, shares a similar sentiment. While he supports the amendments in the bill aimed at creating a more humane Mental Health Act, he cautions that these changes are naive without addressing the deeply rooted issues of resource scarcity in mental health services. Hall points to the tragic events of the Nottingham attacks, which have prompted NHS England to review assertive outreach provisions in 2024, as a stark reminder of the gaps in mental health services. If we are to move toward a truly humane Mental Health Act, Hall argues, we first need to ensure comprehensive community-based care for individuals who are repeatedly admitted to psychiatric wards.
A parent of an adult with severe mental illness echoes this concern, stressing the need for easier access to treatment and care. Currently, individuals with severe mental health issues are often left to struggle in impoverished conditions within the community, with inadequate support. The idea that hospitalization represents a loss of rights is misleading, the parent argues. In fact, it is the lack of timely, appropriate care that often removes people’s rights to live a dignified life. With a potential rise in the threshold for admission, the consequences could be devastating, leading to increased suffering, criminalization, and even death.
Nick Prince, an autistic adult and advocate for the National Autistic Society, draws attention to the specific challenges faced by individuals with autism in the mental health system. He points out that despite promises made by the government in 2015 to reduce the number of autistic people in mental health wards, the proportion has only grown. Autistic individuals now make up 68% of patients in mental health wards, compared to 38% in 2015. This trend is alarming, as many autistic individuals are subjected to medication and restraint in these settings, which can be both harmful and traumatic. Prince warns that the lack of understanding of autism, particularly during episodes of distress such as meltdowns, can lead to inappropriate treatment and further harm.
The perspectives shared by experts, healthcare professionals, and advocates highlight a critical reality: without sufficient funding and systemic reforms, the proposed changes to the Mental Health Act will fall short of providing the care and protection that people with mental health conditions truly need. The key to meaningful reform lies not just in legal amendments, but in a comprehensive approach to mental health care that includes adequate resources, better staff training, and a commitment to addressing the root causes of systemic failures.
Related topics:
