I personally know three people who have been sectioned and who did not, at any time, fulfil the three criteria listed by Simon Wessley as requisites for being sectioned under the mental health act. A patient like Sophia, unable to arise from her bed, cannot possibly be classified as being a danger to others. Finally, if you perform a search on Google, you will easily discover that the Mental Health Act does NOT actually require these three criteria to be fulfilled, so Simon Wesley was incorrect.
Athene
I have some limited experience of 'sectioning' in a different context, so I have some vague recollections of it. The formulation of the law is indeed along the lines of what Wessely quoted, and it does also ring a bell with me that Athene's right, when you get to the small print the act doesn't always require all 3 criteria to be fulfilled, but the overall principle is as stated. It seemed worthwhile to consider how easily any PWC could fall into these criteria:
"People can get sectioned under the mental health act if they are
a) mentally ill
b) refusing treatment that is likely to help their condition
c) a danger to themselves or others "
Clearly here, it's being a danger
to themselves and not to others that is the relevant clause, and that's a typical confusion in the wider application of the Act; for some reason the "to themselves" part never seems to register with people. It is often contentious centring around the question "is the person at risk of suicide?", a case which can pretty much always be argued with any depressive or psychiatric condition.
So I guess that any PWC who were to refuse CBT could potentially fall under Section 28. I'm guessing that the case for sectioning a PWC would be:-
1. They are already diagnosed with CFS, a psychiatric condition, therefore they fulfil (a). (although I'm shocked that CFS can qualify as a mental illness in this context)
2. They are refusing treatment. (as does any PWC who knows what's what).
3. They may die if they lie in bed all day and don't eat properly. (
very questionable)
As I recall it 20 years ago, sectioning was considered a fairly extreme step, and required a panel of psychologists and a magistrate to make the order. It was also considered a very frightening step, and all the mentally ill people I worked with were terrified of it; they could be easily controlled by the mere threat of sectioning. It was considered to be a one-way ticket to a living hell.
I also recall quite clearly that there were a lot of people out there who are very obviously mentally ill, not being treated, behaving in rather scary ways, and
still would not be considered ill enough to be sectioned.
Until a few days ago, I had no idea that people with CFS had been sectioned, and I found that incredibly shocking. It seems like a grotesque and completely inappropriate use of the act to me. The purpose of section 28 is to protect the public from someone who is dangerously insane. To apply it to somebody with CFS is absolutely outrageous, and I can't imagine the anger and bitterness such a person would feel.
