Jillian van Turnhout (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I move amendment No. 71:

In page 78, to delete lines 13 to 22.

I outlined my rationale during the discussion on Committee Stage, and I will not repeat it. I tabled the amendment again because I was not satisfied. I have had a series of engagements with the Minister of State and her officials in the Department of Health. While the Bill is bringing a significant group advance in the advance health care directives, those who are involuntarily detained and treated under the Mental Health Act 2001, approximately 10%, will not be included. Each individual is significant. As I outlined on Committee Stage, all the research tells us that it is not about people refusing treatment but about their preferences being backed up. It is at this precise moment that it is needed.

I am also very aware of the difficulties regarding the Mental Health Act, which is under review, and how we need to recalibrate and re-engineer it. I am very torn. While I am a pragmatic person, I am very concerned that we are leaving people behind in an approach that must be welcomed. While we can discuss the legislation up and down in the Houses, the practice and resourcing on the ground may not change. Will the professionals take a human rights approach centred on dignity, wills, preferences and listening in the different ways many of my colleagues have outlined? While we can have all the best and most precise legislation, will it make the difference we all want to believe in? Many of my colleagues in the Seanad have personally invested in trying to make this what it should be, as has the Minister of State.

Will the funding and resources be given to approaches that respect human rights, dignity and the will and preferences of the individual? I particularly cite open dialogue for those in acute distress, psychosis and mania, which is being used by Dr. Pat Bracken of the HSE in west Cork. In the UK, the NHS provides a three-year training programme in the open dialogue approach along with the Hearing Voices Network. We have not necessarily seen the engagement on the ground.We have seen some brilliant practice and some not so brilliant, to put it in the politest terms, since I am not allowed to use unparliamentary language and there are certain words I would like to use regarding that practice. I had a very deep discussion with the Minister on this and I will not press the amendment. I cannot say it is a head and heart decision because my head as well as my heart is torn on this matter, but I am also pragmatic. While this Bill will make a difference, I believe we are leaving some people outside the room, so to speak, and I am not happy about that, nor do I agree with it. I want a clear commitment from the Minister of State that in revising the Mental Health Act, those people who involuntarily undergo treatment will not be excluded and that if any amendments are needed to the legislation under discussion, this would be done in a timely way. Perhaps the Minister of State would outline how that could be done.

Will the Minister of State clarify whether a person who fails the functional test will not be able to make a valid assessment agreement? I want to be sure I understand this.