United Kingdom: Information on the process by which a person may be committed to a psychiatric institution against his/her own will
|Publisher||Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada|
|Author||Research Directorate, Immigration and Refugee Board, Canada|
|Publication Date||1 February 1996|
|Citation / Document Symbol||GBR22975.E|
|Cite as||Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, United Kingdom: Information on the process by which a person may be committed to a psychiatric institution against his/her own will, 1 February 1996, GBR22975.E, available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6acaf28.html [accessed 25 May 2013]|
|Disclaimer||This is not a UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations or its Member States.|
A representative of the Canden and Isoington Community Health Service of the University College Hospital in London, UK, provided the following information on the above subject during a telephone interview on 6 February 1996.
A person can be sent to a psychiatric institution if three individuals are in agreement that a person is a danger to himself/herself or to the public. These three individuals must include two doctors (a psychiatrist and either a general practioner or a doctor with training in psychiatry) and an "approved social worker" who is a social worker with training in psychiatry, or the nearest family member of the person, i.e, the spouse, the child or the oldest sibling.
Under Section 2 of the 1983 Mental Health Act (28-day assessment section), such a person is sent to a psychiatric institution for assessment of his/her psychiatric problem; no treatment is initiated in this period. Upon completion of the assessment, usually after two weeks, this person can be hospitalized for treatment under Section 3 of the 1983 Mental Health Act (six month of renewable section).
This Response was prepared after researching publicly accessible information currently available to the DIRB within time constraints. This Response is not, and does not purport to be, conclusive as to the merit of any particular claim to refugee status or asylum.
Canden and Isoington Community Health Service, University College Hospital, London, UK. 6 February 1996. Telephone interview with representative.