Letter: Legal dilemma over anorexia
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Your leading article 'The rights and wrongs of treating anorexia' (18 May) rightly encourages preventive measures against death from anorexia. However, two assumptions are made which may not be justified and which have certainly never been tested in the courts.
You assume, first, that anorexia nervosa is sectionable under the Mental Health Act 1983; and, second, you assume that treatment to save life is statutorily permitted.
The only classification of sectionable mental disorder that anorexia could fall into is that of 'mental illness' under s1(1) of the 1983 Act.
The term is not defined further (unlike all the other forms of disorder permitting detention). Its very elasticity makes it possible that anorexia comes within its ambit, but, since medical opinion is far from unanimous, it would inevitably fall to the judges to decide on the facts of a particular case.
Doctors understandably wish to save life. But treatment designed to save life is not, of itself, 'treatment for mental disorder' (see ss. 60-63 of the 1983 Act). Assimilation of these quite separate ideas lies at the heart of the confusion over whether patients may, lawfully, be treated under our mental health legislation.
Even if anorexia is a form of mental illness, the treatment plan would have to be directed towards the underlying disorder and not the consequences (even if life-invading) of that disorder.
The Kendall case highlights the doctors' dilemma; it does nothing to resolve the very complicated legal issues engaged.
Yours faithfully,
RICHARD GORDON
London, WC2
18 May
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments