Following medical scrutiny of two electronic s2 medical recommendations the doctor has queried the legality of the detention after it had become apparent that the medical opinion given on the two separate forms were literally word for word (with an addition of an one extra sentence). It therefore appears to have been a copy and paste situation.
Do we need to end this detention under s23 and re-start or is it ok to replace one of the medical recommendations within the 14 day period.
We had a section declared invalid for this very reason recently. We felt that if it was a joint recc it should be on the right form and if it was not the reasons should be independently arrived at.
This cut and paste situation implies that one of the opinions is not genuine and independent. Whatâs therefore the point of having two medical recommendations? Parliament could simply have said âAny dogsbody who agreeâs just tick a box.â - in more legal language of course.
Why are doctors getting away with such things across the land? The answer is simple: NOBODY (other than me) wants to report them to the GMC.
If fact - many forums frown on talk of GMC action - itâs a no no.. that is banned in many. Itâs a big club and nobody wants to upset the big club.
I think the argument is not so much about the copy and pasting or the wording being identical or it being a joint recommendation - what this situation represents is whether or not two individual professionals submitted two individual observations about the patient arriving at their own individual conclusions.
By having two recommendations 99.9 per cent identical would be strong evidence showing that independent professional opinion was not attained putting the shift of responsibly back onto the relevant authorities to prove otherwise - this is where the detention can now be potentially scrutinised as not valid.
This was a live moment of registration - you can not now replace the defective recommendation to justify the section within the 14 days; the most logical outcome would be to apply s23 to discharge the patient rather than exposing the relevant authorities to legal risk by continuing a section with a questionably flawed foundation.
It is not necessary for the recommending doctors to submit an individual opinion if it is, in fact, a joint recommendation- but they need to do it on a the correct form.
Just out of interest , Sarah, are you using AI to write your answers? I agree with much of what you have said on this occasion but I am just interested . I realise some people are using AI on the forum and I am unsure as to why that would be of assistance to others.
OP is citing s2 recommendations - they do not mention any reference to a joint recommendation. So, it followed the usual process of the Mental Health Act 1983 featuring two ST12 doctors. Two independent doctors are required by law to submit their recommendations - not as a joint collaboration - individually specifically reporting their own observations - a separate clinical judgment of the patient they are assessing. Failing to have legitimate recommendations undermines the validity of the detention sanctioned.
Section 23 does not validate the section. It allows the relevant persons in control to end the detention.
I think Anthony meant yo say âwhy discharge section if it is invalidâ - which is a good point as an invalid section never took effect. However I do prefer it to be discharged by s23 in that scenario as it can cause confusion otherwise.