Professor Brendan Kelly wrote in The Irish Times on Wednesday, 19 March about the shortcomings in the Mental Health Bill 2024 and suggested some ways it might be improved.

Read the full article on the Irish Times here.

Read some highlights from the article below:

Discussing the criteria for treatment after involuntary admission:

This risk-based threshold would mean that some people’s mental illness would be deemed sufficiently severe to require involuntary admission, but not sufficiently severe to require treatment.[…] It should not be possible for a person to be deprived of their liberty on the basis of mental illness but not treated for it. That is simply imprisonment.

Addressing the legal processes that are being proposed for some involuntary patients:

The 2024 Bill proposes three legal processes for some of these patients: mental health review boards to review involuntary orders (as is currently the case); Circuit Court hearings to review the patient’s decision-making capacity (under the Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Act 2015); and High Court hearings for treatment orders. In other words, doctors would decide who is deprived of liberty, but judges would decide who is treated. That makes no sense either.

Such a multilayered legal process would also be unimaginably complex, cumbersome and costly.

Regarding general concerns with the Bill:

All mention of of ‘risk’ should be removed from the legislation.[…] Assessment of risk is not a reliable basis for admission treatment without consent.

The 2024 Bill lacks ambition. It inflates bureaucratic requirements without providing a single euro more for mental health services. A true commitment to human rights would ensure that all people with mental illness receive care and support. Regrettably, the 2024 Bill would go some way towards ensuring they don’t.