Effect of the Connor Sparrowhawk Verdict and Puplic Accountability.

Audit checklist on a desk, with tick against audit satisfactory

Over the past 30 years, public health and welfare systems, have been honed to perfect unaccountability,   self- preservation, and risk aversion.

The total impossibility of even NHS complaints is illustrated here.   https://www.dropbox.com/s/xn3zf9epstwl9mh/The%20problem%20is%20the%20burden%20of%20proof.doc?dl=0

It has taken nearly three years, and over a million pounds, a public campaign, several published enquiries a coroner’s inquest, and a jury, to show it was negligent to allow an epileptic, autistic inpatient in an assessment centre to lie for hours unattended in  a bath. .

Connor’s family have effectively got no where in the fight for justice for their son and as can be seen her in his Mum’s blog are still waiting at 5th April 2016.

https://mail.google.com/mail/?tab=wm#inbox/153e2c1b7656bf3a

To decide, that allowing, a vulnerable epileptic man, to drown in his bath, was negligent.

And, it was revealed, that only 6 years earlier, another man had drowned mal- nourished in the same bath, in the same NHS adult treatment centre.

The only conclusion, that can be drawn from this, is, the NHS is publically unaccountable.

And, even when it is, the only sanction is a fine, payable, from public funds, and, resultant insolvency.

Following a pointless, expensive public enquiry. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/feb/06/mid-staffs-hospital-scandal-guide

St Andrews Healthcare, and most Adult Treatment Units, are now run for private profit, but, paid out of the NHS public purse, and, as charities, pay no tax.

So no tax, no accountability, no service, and huge profit.

The perfect business model.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/st-andrews-healthcares-recycled-income/

And, a similar story is true, now of most public services.

The Baby P scandal, illustrated, the lack of accountability, self-protection, and, inadequacy, of the now, effectively privatised child protection services.

What is their accountability, for the thousands of rapes of children over 15 years in Rotherham alone?

Or, the many illegal adoptions, that pocket adopting agencies, a minimum of £28,000 per child.

https://finolamoss.wordpress.com/2015/07/07/autistic-parents-have-no-rights-and-the-private-corporate-parent-is-unaccountable/

Mental health is now about creating, as profitable a market, as possible.

When did the learning disabled, autistic, epileptic, need to be institutionalised, and, medicated, at huge public expense, for life?

This is a gold mine, from which private equity is, literally, and, metaphorically, making a killing.

See the billions spent on mental health services in the past 5 years in England.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/written-questions-answers-statements/written-question/Commons/2015-06-11/2174/

Throwing money at a service, without accountability, has shown not to work.

The forced, costly exposure of how Connor died, which, put his parents, through even more, unnecessary, excruciating hell, will justify further NHS privatisation.

And, be used, to move mental health care, to a local level, and utilise, the private Adult Treatment Units, holding units, and supported living, already in place.

Thomas Rawnsley, was the only occupant for a long time, in the ATU, which, effectively killed him.

Within these local provisions, accountability, is even more elusive.

As they are  policed, by the Mental Capacity Act, and, Court of Protection,

So, unlike   Connor’s NHS treatment, are in secret, and, for life.

And, therefore, the risk of abuse, and death, even greater.

As, are the profit making opportunities, for the outsourcers, venture capitalists, and their supporting industry

http://www.nationalhealthexecutive.com/Health-Care-News/mental-capacity-act-allows-draconian-and-secretive-decisions

Stephen Hawking, and the difference between ‘Capacity’ and ‘Competence’

Physicist_Stephen_Hawking_in_Zero_Gravity_NASA

The Mental Capacity Act defines capacity as,

the ability to make a decision’.

Whilst competence is defined as

the ability to do something successfully or efficiently’.

Competence is a far more expansive creature.

As it is the ability to execute a decision, after it has been made .

If we run the two together, at most, the definition of capacity, would be,

‘ the ability to make a decision, successfully’.

Not to be indecisive, like Hamlet

But indecisiveness, is excluded from incapacity, under the Act.

The Act, was not titled, The Mental ‘Competency’ Act.

But, by stealth, the capacity test as defined, requires a person to understand, the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his decision.

And therefore must have the ability, to weigh up the risks, and consequences of that decision.

This requires, far more, than the an ‘ability to make a decision’.

The definition of ‘capacity’ under the Act.

It requires the competence to perform a decision once made.

And therefore, judge ones own competence to execute the decision, by being able to weigh, the risks and consequences of it.

This is a person’s competency not his capacity .

Such a distinction, may not affect the assessments of delirious patients, or, the alzheimer confused, to consent to medical treatment. .

But, even here, the capacity test, allows, draconian, and dangerous removal of any patient’s autonomy.

And prevents any questioning, of medical diagnoses, and/or treatment.

Were Ashya King, an incapable adult, he, nor, his parents, could, have availed themselves of laser treatment, and, he,  might now, be severely disabled.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3148042/Cancer-patient-Ashya-King-six-parents-arrested-taking-abroad-pioneering-treatment-UK-given-clear.html

The  MCA Code of Practice, worryingly,provides a person’s denial of his medical, or, mental diagnosis could be used as evidence of  his incapacity to consent to treatment.

Jack Nicholson, in One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest, would, therefore, be deemed incapable, of consenting to his treatment, because of his denial of his non existent mental disorder.one-flew-over-the-cuckoos-nest-movie-poster

The MCA Code gives little guidance on assessing capacity, when considering proactive decisions.

Stephen Hawking ’s capacity to decide to go into space, or out into the community, without his wheelchair..

Or, an autistic adult’s decision to go out into the community alone.

Are decisions, both, have the capacity to make but not the competency to perform.

If, they were to insist, they did have such capacity, this would be evidence, this would be evidence, they failed to appreciate, the consequences of their decisions, and, were therefore under the functional assessment,incapable.

Although Professor Hawing’s incapacity, could, not be caused by an’ impairment of the mind’, as unlike an autistic, he has a voice box.

As the Act, likes to have its cake, and eat it, it states, reckless decisions, per se, are not evidence of incapacity.

The capacity test, is not about capacity, but competence, safeguarding, and control.

And, ferociously discriminates against the disabled by using, a disabled’s person’s inability to execute a decision, against him by conflating, incapacity with incompetence.

Parliament, appears to have modelled, this capacity test, on the test used, to assess a child’s competency to give evidence.

As section 53(1) of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 (YJCEA 1999) povides:

A person, is not competent to give evidence in criminal proceedings, if it appears to the court, that he is not a person, who is able to understand questions put to him as a witness and give answers to them which can be understood [section 53(3)].

Having lectured, this for twenty years, I can attest, it is a minefield of semantics.

Case law, arguing, it is satisfied, if a child can distinguish, between ‘fact and fantasy’ ie they know teletubies are not real.

Santa Claus?

And, a child must appreciate, the importance of telling the truth, and the consequences in court. as opposed to a social occasion.

Truth is truth?

Suffice it to say, the competence of a child, is a vague, subjective exercise, for a judge to assess, on questioning each particular child.

So one can but wonder, why, Parliament, chose, a similar blunt, subjective tool, to potentially remove, anyone’s autonomy for life in most cases.

Could it serve the real purpose of the MCA ?