This paper compares selected characteristics of absconders with those of non-absconders matched for age group, sex, type of ward and length of stay. The study was conducted over a twelve-month period in three English conventional mental hospitals. The case notes of both groups of patients and also various hospital documents were perused. Analysis of the data was done using SPSS. Overall, the absconders were found to differ significantly from the non-absconders on source of referral, legal status, job to go to, visits from relatives or friends and history of alcohol abuse. The significant findings are discussed in the light of previous studies.

Although there are several works on mental hospitals, the legal aspects of mental hospital regime have not been comprehensively studied. This paper aims to fill that gap as regards England and Wales. The empirical study was conducted in a conventional English mental hospital which was within the National Health Service. After the introduction and a brief account of modes of admission to mental hospitals, the paper focuses on various aspects of mental hospital regime such as hospital rules and policies, daily routine, treatment without consent, seclusion, close observation, searches of patients and their property, restrictions on mail, etc., and then discusses the question of their legality, characterised by the tussle between the rights of patients and the rights of society. The paper concludes that although the regimes in mental hospitals may be considered reasonable and necessary, certain features of them (e.g., treatment without consent and searches of patients and their property) are controversial.

No abstract

No abstract

The informal status of a patient is a very important topic because the vast majority of mental patients in hospital are informal. The origins of the status are traced to the Royal Commissions of 1924-6 and 1954-7 which recommended voluntary admissions and informal admissions, respectively. It is pointed out, inter alia, that it is only generally true to say the informal patient has consented to admission and cannot be treated without his or her consent because exceptionally he or she can be given such treatment, e.g. on the grounds of necessity, as held by the House of Lords in R v Bournewood Community and Mental Health Trust (1998) and that today there are two types of informal patients: those who can, and do, consent to admission, and those who cannot consent to admission, but do not show willingness to leave hospital. It is argued that there is only a power under the Mental Health Act 1983 to admit patients informally. Finally, the informal patient's consent to admission, consent to treatment, other rights, leaving hospital, and how his or her position can be improved are looked at.