Alaska Mental Health Act or the "Siberia Bill" - any similarities to UK Mental Health Bill?

The “Siberia Bill” was the final extension of a decade-long psychiatric effort to simplify commitment procedures, the bill specifically called for the establishment of a remote Alaskan mental health facility and radically streamlined means of incarcerating inmates-hence the nickname “Siberia Bill” to remind the people of precisely what the plan comprised, i.e. an American Gulag. Eventually described by the Superior Court Judge as representing, “totalitarian government at its best” the bill proposed that “any health welfare or police officer who has reason to believe that an individual is mentally ill and therefore likely to injure himself or others if not immediately restrained” may transport that individual to a mental asylum for professional evaluation.
There, “the prisoner” could be detained five days, or if judged mentally incompetent, “for the rest of his natural life.” No statement of probably cause was required, no issue of warrant was necessary, and no hearing.
Sound similar to the Mental Health bill in UK right now?
50 years later to the day... and why is someone still trying to push through such a bill?

More on the UK Mental Health Bill

I gathered some quotes from articles on the UK Mental Health bill. Interesting how few people agree with it.


FROM: The Independent
The Bill, if approved, will allow local authorities to force compulsory treatment on mental patients whether or not it is beneficial. Wide-spread use of proposed Community Treatment Orders (CTOs) could put severe restrictions on patients after they have been discharged from hospital as well as governing where they live and what medication they take.
Paul Corry of Rethink. "Detention for reasons other than health benefit should be handled by non-health services."
The Bill is the third attempt to reform existing legislation. Previous efforts failed after fierce opposition.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article2016145.ece


FROM: YOUNG PEOPLE NOW
The mental health bill, which amends part of the Mental Health Act 1983, would allow health services to detain mentally ill patients for treatment without their permission if they are perceived as a danger to others, whether their illness is curable or not. This would include 16- and 17-year-olds. Currently health services can only detain patients with curable problems.
Louis Appleby, national clinical director for mental health services at the Department of Health, said: "Sixteen- and 17-year-olds will be treated like adults. For under-16s we will need parental consent."

http://www.ypnmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseaction=full_news&ID=12412


FROM: Rethink: reports on politics.co.uk
Dr Tony Zigmond, a psychiatrist in Leeds and Honorary Vice President at the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said: "Of course I sometimes need the authority to treat some of my patients without their consent. The problem with this Bill is that it will increase the stigma and fear that people face when they consider telling me about their mental health problems. As a doctor I need service users to trust that I will always put their health first. We need legislation with principles that strengthen the rights of service users and carers.”

http://www.politics.co.uk/press-releases/health/mental-health/mental-health/rethink-mental-health-service-users-families-and-staff-concerned-about-mental-health-bill-$459426.htm

New Mental Health Bill in UK

I just read about the new draft Mental Health bill for UK. I read a part of the bill and this looks quite scary.

Involuntary commitment now gets a new form. There is a new Tribunal to be made of minimum 3 people which will decide if someone gets put away or not. And they don't decide based on the problem the person has but rather based on the behaviour even if they don't know the cause.

I stopped reading the rest after that.

I was reminded of the book 1984 by Orwell, what if someone disagrees with the government. Well all it would take is for some psychiatrist to name that as a disorder and there we go.

They already have some 400 disorders and more growing by the day. Everything can be construed as a disorder if one has a different view on the subject.

It is the classical psychiatrist solution. Someone disagrees with them - they label him crazy, he gets locked up and they can continue with what they want to do.

25 years ago Homosexuality was a disorder, now it isn't. What's the difference? Some lawyers put enough pressure on the psychiatric assiciation to take it out of their book. That's not too scientific an approach.

If that bill passes we are heading for a grim future.