--- In thomasszaszdiscussion@yahoogroups.com, mirah@d... wrote:
> etaonsh wrote:
>
> > Would a 'civil commitment' include 'sectioning.'?
>
> Right. In England it's called sectioning, or certification?
'Certification' sounds outdated, supplanted by the funny-if-it's-not-
you, otherwise callous term 'sectioning' (sounds quite odd to those
who first hear it in an inevitably threatening context - the humour
of the empowered?). It comes originally from certain key
relevant 'sections' of the Mental Health Act. I guess 'certificates'
started to sound too prestigious(?). ;]
> > It's rather like the Witchfinder General admitting to one
mistake,
> > and thereby actually grabbing extra credence for the underlying
> > process.
>
> I agree completely.
Not to mention the apparent favoritism implied, as with the recent
Irish example.
> This verdict does not test the validity of civil
> commitment/sectioning/certification, but rather raps institutions
on the
> fingers for having detained someone without it.
Did they lack the requisite signatories present? Big deal (not to
undermine the need for legal niceties)!
I felt that my own 'sectioning' in 1986 was wrong because I had
offered no physical opposition, but all I got was a successful appeal
against the section, making little practical difference to my
stigmatised, harassed in-patient status over the ensuing nine months
and seventeen years in a slum tower block. My resort to a mental
health lawyer after the episode resulted only in a 'confidential'
admission by the hard-to-find lawyer that he customarily represented
the authority about which I was complaining. Not, it appears, a
legal 'conflict of interest'(?).
There must be a lot of patients and former patients (and prisoners,
for that matter) disappointed to find no crock of gold for their
irrefutable, unredressed tribulations, and more importantly, perhaps,
no protection for future incumbents in the same situations as they
arise (often unbelievable for those with no inside knowledge of the
mental health system).
Richard (UK)