Mark Neary ponders the workings of the Mental Health Act in relation to `best interest` decisions:
"It’s only Tuesday but in the past four days I have heard the stories of three people with autism and/or learning disabilities who are each detained under a Mental Health section. Each one of them have asked for extended leave and can make a decent best interests argument for being allowed leave but each one has been refused by the responsible psychiatrists who have cited "risk" as the reason for their refusal."
"The three requests were made to:
1. Spend a long weekend away with family in a cottage in Wales.
2. Attend a family wedding.
3. Spend his 30th birthday on a boat with his family and friends."
"It’s pretty easy to put a case together as to why any of the above would be in the person’s best interests. All of them involve quality time with people who love them and have known them for years. All three activities are significant life events and will form part of the memory photo album for the future. All three events show the person they are loved, and respected, and important to the family dynamic and that the person is a valued component of something greater and bigger than him/herself. In a nutshell, all three should be good things to do."
"But risk comes first and appears to trump best interests."
Read more https://markneary1dotcom1.wordpress.com/2017/07/25/the-psychiatrist-says-no/