How the proposal to delete Section 59.b of the MHA 2001 was gutted It is now perfectly clear. The Boyle/Norris/De Burca Bill on ECT was simple: delete Section 59.b and replace with an ECT clause requiring consent in all cases. Senators Ivana Bacik and Phil Prendergast (Labour Party) gutted this with an alternative Government-driven amendment: In page 3, before section 2, to insert the following new section: 2.-‐-‐Section 59 of the Mental Health Act 2001 is amended in subsection (1)(b) by the deletion of “or unwilling”. This the one which prevailed, leaving this wording of the Section: 59.—(1) A programme of electro-‐convulsive therapy shall not be administered to a patient unless either— (a) the patient gives his or her consent in writing to the administration of the programme of therapy, or (b) where the patient is unable to give such consent — (i) the programme of therapy is approved (in a form specified by the Commission) by the consultant psychiatrist responsible for the care and treatment of the patient, and (ii) the programme of therapy is also authorised (in a form specified by the Commission) by another consultant psychiatrist following referral of the matter to him or her by the first-‐mentioned psychiatrist. (2) The Commission shall make rules providing for the use of electro-‐convulsive therapy and a programme of electro-‐convulsive therapy shall not be administered to a patient except in accordance with such rules. In which case, the consultant simply declares the patient unable and, after the old Compliant Colleague TwoStep, shocks. (That's if the Dail confirms this change... literally another day's work...) See here: http://debates.oireachtas.ie/seanad/2011/03/24/00005.asp
2 Eden Park Dun Laoghaire Co Dublin IRELAND tel +353 1 2800084 e-mail email@example.com websites www.wellbeingfoundation.com www.depressiondialogues.ie
Published on Mar 25, 2011
The Boyle/Norris/De Burca Bill on ECT in the Irish Senate was simple: delete Section 59.b and replace with an ECT clause requiring consent i...