Humanities desk
< October 23	<< Sep \| October \| Nov >>	October 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 24

Compensation

How much compensation would you expect for someone wrongfully sectioned and "treated" under the Mental Health Act for a year? --178.208.193.171 (talk) 17:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A section requires the consent of two doctors. It lasts for six months and you can appeal to the Mental Health Tribunal (assuming you're in England and Wales) at any time. After 28 days you can be required to undergo treatment. Why do you think the doctors got it wrong? See Mental Health Act 1983. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 18:56, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 178.208.193.171 per our disclaimer, nothing said here can be taken as legal advice and Hi 2.8.218.38, note that no answers here should offer advice on the questioner's personal situation. Would you be willing to strike your question about it?

The best we could do is offer a reference to previously published amounts of compensation in such a situation. I have not found any, but better googlers may be able to.

For more general reading for context, there have been news stories about people being wrongly sectioned, official reports with statistics, and government promises for new legislation. Here is one example of person who received an award for wrongful dismissal related to mental health, but without sectioning being specifically part of the case. 70.67.222.124 (talk) 20:26, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, which of these Mental Health Acts are you talking about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:03, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Those links provide no evidence that anyone has been wrongfully sectioned. Mind you, it did happen in the past, which is why the Lunacy Act 1890 introduced the right of a patient to refer the case to review by magistrates. Before that, there was Ignaz Semmelweis and afterwards the Soviet dissidents. I am put in mind of the case of the Scottish deputy sheriffs. As they were on fixed term contracts the European Court ruled that they were not "an independent and impartial tribunal" as required by the Charter of Human Rights because their decisions could be affected by fear of losing their jobs. Their decisions were annulled. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 10:46, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In some states of the U.S. during the 19th century, a husband could put his wife into a mental hospital based on his sole unsupported word. There were a few notorious cases which gave rise to legal reforms... AnonMoos (talk) 23:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In Britain, parents often had their daughters who became unmarried mothers placed in asylums [1]. Great distress was caused to these people by being locked up with lunatics. One girl, who was perceived by the staff not to be mad, was given a privileged job working in the kitchen. There she bided her time and one afternoon when the coast was clear she made her escape. She hitchhiked to London where she got a job near the Angel Islington as a waitress. So terrified was she of being sent back that she changed her name. She became the girlfriend of one of the customers, married and had a family. Many years later she was contacted by the Manchester police (where she was from) following the death of a relative. Ireland and other countries had their Magdalene laundries. 92.8.218.38 (talk) 15:00, 27 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]