Issuu on Google+

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:

2 Eden Park Dun Laoghaire Co Dublin IRELAND tel +353 1 2800084 e-mail websites

How the 'Delete 59.b' Bill was gutted