Aspies For Freedom

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicser...48,00.html
Civil rights fears over mental health reforms

David Batty
Wednesday January 19, 2005

A committee of MPs warned ministers today that the controversial draft mental health bill would grossly infringe the rights of people with learning disabilities and autism.

Members of the joint committee on the draft mental health bill raised concerns that the broad definition of mental disorder in the proposed legislation would cover learning disabilities and all autistic spectrum disorders, including Asperger syndrome.

Conservative MP Angela Browning told the mental health minister, Rosie Winterton, that widening the scope of mental disorders to encompass learning and developmental disabilities was "surely a huge infringement of their civil rights" because they would have to declare themselves as having a mental disorder purely because the proposed legislation had changed its definition.

"From now on, through this legislation, all of those people will be identified as having a mental disorder," said the MP.

Ms Winterton said it was not the government's intention that everyone with learning disabilities would be brought under the powers of the bill. She said the definition of mental disorder had been broadened so that people were not excluded from its remit because they suffered from another condition.

The minister insisted that there was "absolutely no desire to single out people with learning disabilities, autism, or people with Asperger syndrome".

But the committee chairman, Liberal Democrat peer Lord Carlisle, said if the definition was not amended, anyone with autism or a learning disability who was asked to declare whether or not they had ever suffered from a mental disorder would have to answer yes.

The MPs also raised concerns about the new definition of mental disorder also including drug and alcohol problems. Ms Winterton insisted that people would not be subjected to the powers of the proposed legislation purely on the basis of having a substance misuse problem - they would also have to suffer from mental dysfunction.

The minister also denied claims that the definition of the bill was so broad that it could even encompass people who fail to quit smoking. She said: "I would say that clearly that is something of an exaggeration from what we're trying to achieve."

Nor, she added, would the bill cover people with physical conditions such as diabetes or epilepsy, unless they were suffering from some mental dysfunction.

The committee is set to publish a report of its findings in March.

Why is the above so disturbing??? see this?
==========================================
http://society.guardian.co.uk/mentalheal...67,00.html
Mentally ill face 'Asbo' measures

David Batty
Wednesday October 27, 2004

People with mental health problems living in the community could be banned from leaving their homes under proposals to reform mental health law, a legal expert has warned.

Under the controversial draft mental health bill, people under assessment or receiving care in the community must comply with a code of conduct imposed by their doctor, according to Phil Fennell, a professor from Cardiff University's law school.

The professor said that the measure would exacerbate discrimination as it effectively treated mental health problems as a form of antisocial behaviour.

The draft bill, which ministers expect to become law in 2007, states that mental health staff could impose "a condition that the patient does not engage in specified conduct".

If the patient fails to comply with the conditions they could be forcibly detained in hospital. Speaking at a conference in London on mental health reform, Professor Fennell likened the code of conduct to antisocial behaviour orders (Asbos).

The professor said: "[The conditions] are like Asbos. For example, a person could be stopped from going out to the pub in the evening if it was considered their mental health problems could be exacerbated by drinking.

"It's a very wide power indeed especially when one considers that clinical supervisors [mental health staff] can decide to treat someone in hospital."

Vicky Yeates, a senior law lecturer at the University of Glamorgan in Wales, raised concerns that the proposed legislation would make carers responsible for ensuring that patients did not break the code of conduct.

Ms Yeates, whose daughter has mental health problems, said the measure would turn carers into jailers and push families already under pressure to breaking point.

She said: "Who will bear responsibility that your loved one isn't hauled off into hospital? The carer. You're effectively becoming a policing agent of the state. I think this will have a deleterious effect on an already strained relationship."

The draft bill has faced overwhelming opposition from mental health professionals and service users. A revised version of the proposed legislation is currently undergoing pre-legislative scrutiny by an expert parliamentary committee.

For quite some time I have been reading dire warnings that legislation of this kind is going to be passed in the UK. My understanding was that this kind of legislation would aim to control people with conditions such as Anti-social Personality Disorder. I didn't think it would cover all "mental disorders". If a person is troublesome enough to deserve a label like APD or psychopath, why aren't they in jail?

I think it shows what an alienated society you must have in the UK (not that I am saying things are any better here). Certain members of society will be treated as problems rather than as people if this stuff comes into effect.

Who supports this kind of legislation? There must be some public support for these kinds of measures?

Yea but Lili with the first story that law would make AS a mental disorder hence ASBO is applicable and the conditions in second story

It doesnt mean that those measures would be applied, unless necessary.
It certainly wouldnt be automatic, there would be no benefit in doing that. It could be applied when it was felt necessary, and that is where civil liberties could be infringed.
For instance, look at the recent story of the "anti-social neighbour" who had AS, would they be able to restrict his movements under these guidelines?

Welcome to Nazi Britain. Please leave your freedom at the border.

:shock:

A fear of being kept under the power of some professional or govt officer is a reason why some autistic people do not seek to be officially diagnosed or do not identify themselves as autistic or AS.

So now they are saying AS is a "mental disorder". I guess people who like to control the behaviour of others might like it if we are put in that category, so that they have an excuse to control behaviour that they don't understand. Well, if someone is thought to be insane no one will argue about a need to control such a person, will they?

And autism is also supposed to be a "developmental disorder" (the people who want to sell training interventions to change us into neurotypicals like this angle on autism I think). When AS is described as a "pervasive developmental disorder" doesn't that make it sound so sinister, like creeping cancer or some evil subversive ideology?

I've also heard that autism/AS is a "neurological disorder". Now I'm guessing neurologists who want research funding to study autism like to use this definition of autism.

Me, I prefer to describe AS as a "difference" becuse it suits my own agenda. I would like to be recognised for who I really am, not as a defective but as a different kind of person.

I'm going to try and find out all the details of this, and of any subsequent powers that could be used, I can imagine it would really put adults off seeking a diagnosis, and worry those who already have one.

If the problems raised are serious enough and this isn't just a case of me reacting on gut emotions (Certain sets of circumstances do make people do do that and I am in certain cirumstances.) I may either write or go talk to my local MP about the issues raised by these articles. However I'll also wait until more information is found out about this.

Theres always the european court of human rights....

By the way if you have something like OCD then thats definately a mental disorder.  What happens to you then?

Dangerous personality disorders....

Back to OCD again (which seems to be my 'obsession of the month' so sorry if I keep going on about it).

As precious few who do not have the full condition are aware, OCD is a form of chronic neurosis.  In some cases this includes a fear of harming other people or being able to harm other people.  The difference between this and a 'dangerous personality disorder' is that the person realises the unwanted thoughts are nonsense even if they are unsuppressable and they will never be acted upon even if the resulting anxiety drives the person over the edge.

Can you imagine what some stupid people in government would do if they had their way?

Personally I'm scared shitless at the moment because full OCD is part of my overall 'disposition' (which has already been diagnosed so theres not much difference whether I go through with the AS assessment or not)

As Stella rightly points out, the governemnt used "care in the community" to cut services and spend less. Maybe this Bill will do something similar and be a double whammy of cutting more services, and giving more power to section people or keep them locked up at home.

since when are we psychopaths?  there's a whole world of difference between someone with autism and a psychopath.  

and i doubt there's any real danger of someone in the know using the term psychopath instead of sociopath, as the former term is no longer part of any diagnostic criteria - it's all borderline personality disorder, and anti-social wossname disorder and stuff now.

I think Stella is referring to the term that was used in the past "autistic psychopathy". (They really used to say that, and also autism was called childhood schizophrenia).