Mental Health Care Amendment Bill

MEDIA RELEASE

19 March 2013

Cheryllyn Dudley MP ACDP

The object of this Bill is to provide for the delegation of powers by the Director-General, to officials within the national department, to improve service delivery in the area of involuntary health care users and to ensure effective implementation of the Act generally. 

The proposed insertion enables the DG to delegate powers to review the mental health status of state patients, determine their transfers between health establishments and transfers from detention centres to health establishments in terms of a court order. The Bill also repeals a remaining chapter of the Act dealing with hospital boards that is no longer necessary.

The ACDP will support this bill which is not in itself contentious in any way and should improve efficiency and effectiveness. 

In October 2001 the ACDP also voted in favour of the then new Mental Health Care Act - legislation, aimed at ensuring appropriate care, treatment and rehabilitation services are available to people with mental-health problems. This legislation, with a primary health care approach, appeared to have practical relevance to everyday clinical decision-making and promoted greater transparency. 

Our concern at the time however, was that efforts to balance the rights of people with mental disabilities and the rights of the public were in question when it comes to state patients, with communities facing all the risk in terms of patient rehabilitation. 

I remember the trauma faced by my sister and her daughters when the man who murdered their son and brother did not have to stand trial as his use of drugs ensured that he was “not in his right mind” at the time of the murder, and this meant, in terms of the Act, he could be granted leave of absence or be discharged at any time without prior notice to the victims family. At the time this family believed they, and in fact, the whole community was in danger and lived with the worry that the man they knew to be a conman and murderer would be allowed back into the community without any warning. 

The ACDP moved amendments in the Portfolio committee, which would address these concerns, but in spite of broad support in the committee, including those who had actually worked with state mental patients and knew first-hand the deception often involved, was left out - even the minor concession with regard to leave of absence. 

As we have seen that when an accused can afford a top defence lawyer, the use of drugs can be a protection against even standing trial. We therefore, again call on the Minister and the department to seriously consider the need for the families of victims to be given the opportunity to appeal the leave of absence and discharge of state patients who pose a threat to society or at the very least be informed of such decisions.