Autistic girl dragged from home for unknown Food Sensitivities

JuniperFromGallifrey said:

Autistic Discrimination

I don't see what's discriminatory about this situation. They are not saying they know she is autistic and discriminating against her, they are looking at her behaviour through a neurotypical lens and coming up with the wrong conclusion. The police viewed her behaviour as a threat, because in their experience neurotypical people who behave like that are generally violent and aggressive, so therefore they learn to be proactive in responding so they don't get hurt themselves. They probably haven't met an autistic person before, to be aware her behaviour came from a place of overstimulation or anxiety. So I'm not convinced of the discrimination angle.

Her story and situation are tragic and traumatic, and nobody should be treated like that. There should be a mountain of paperwork presented before they came to the door to take her to hospital. Social work, where most of these situations arise, should have been in contact before things escalated to be this bad.

JuniperFromGallifrey said:

not have bothered

Healthcare professionals are highly trained and registered to ensure their fitness to practice. The dieticians and kitchen staff are specialists in nutrition - but your regular doctor/nurse will only have the basics. What you are calling for is highly specialised, and infrequently accessed information. It would be inefficient to train millions of healthcare workers in this, if only say 2,000 need the information. The others just need to know how to contact the experts.

Also, remember the NHS has patient confidentiality higher priority than freedom of the press, so of course they will not comment. My friend says staff are already criticised for not getting their mandatory training done on time, and some don't get breaks. Imagine working 13h shifts on your feet serving others all day, no breaks, doing your best but still being berated for not being up to date on fire safety... never mind on the hundreds of minority populations covered by the Equality Act. I am not making excuses, just pleading for understanding.

Should the patient, or her family, wish to complain about the NHS there are formal channels to take this through. All of which are less emotive than standing outside a shared facility where patients are at high levels of anxiety and distress and may be further distressed by the protesters' actions, and are less emotive than complaining to the press who sensationalise things to get sales and clicks.

This is a remarkable well balanced view on the situation.

Fiona said:

The police viewed her behaviour as a threat

As we see on other threads here, the police force are pretty much a hammer and to them every problem looks like a nail. It is refreshing to see NAS producing a guide for them for when they deal with autists so progress is being made thankfully.

I suspect social services had some busybody report child abuse or neglect which tends to bring the services out in force without evidence. The entirely predictable escalation of events would have been avoided if they had been given the NAS training and a few minutes of research on the "perps" before the visit.

If the poor girl had ended up hitting a police officer then she could have ended up with a criminal record for assaulting a police officer too.

It is sad and a situation we see repeated way too often.

Yet another attack on social workers and health professionals?

The young lady is eighteen so it is not a child protection matter.  It might be an adult safeguarding issue if the parent is going against medical advice and the daughter lacks capacity. Abuse/neglect could include taking the patient away to avoid lawful detention for treatment of a mental disorder. If the patient has the capacity she has a right to refuse treatment unless she is mentally ill, when the Mental Health Acts come into force. This applies whether or not the patient is autistic -  the section is presumably for assessment/treatment of an eating disorder. In Scotland (but not England and Wales) it is also possible to remove an adult who is not mentally ill but is at risk of harm from self-neglect (previously s47 National Assistance Act 1948) - but the context implies that this case involved the Mental Health 1983, either s2 (assessment) or s3 (treatment.)

The Mental Health Act 1983 is very clear about "sectioning" and the rights of nearest relatives. If the mother is the nearest relative, she has rights, including a right to be consulted. (s.11)  However, by removing the patient and going into hiding rather than using the proper legal process raises the question of whether the parent is appropriate as the nearest relative. She may think she is acting in the patient's best interests, but maybe she is mistaken.

The sensible thing to do is to get legal advice and use the legal process to remove the patient from the hospital, providing there is appropriate care in the community. It may be that hard-pressed community services cannot provide optimum care, and that hospital treatment is the only practical option in the circumstances.

AMHPs and mental health doctors are required to have autism training - if you want to query their clinical judgement or actions, use the relevant complaints procedures or the Mental Health Act.

Petitions and protests are no substitute for using the proper procedures

Yet another attack on social workers and health professionals?

The young lady is eighteen so it is not a child protection matter.  It might be an adult safeguarding issue if the parent is going against medical advice and the daughter lacks capacity. Abuse/neglect could include taking the patient away to avoid lawful detention for treatment of a mental disorder. If the patient has the capacity she has a right to refuse treatment unless she is mentally ill, when the Mental Health Acts come into force. This applies whether or not the patient is autistic -  the section is presumably for assessment/treatment of an eating disorder. In Scotland (but not England and Wales) it is also possible to remove an adult who is not mentally ill but is at risk of harm from self-neglect (previously s47 National Assistance Act 1948) - but the context implies that this case involved the Mental Health 1983, either s2 (assessment) or s3 (treatment.)

The Mental Health Act 1983 is very clear about "sectioning" and the rights of nearest relatives. If the mother is the nearest relative, she has rights, including a right to be consulted. (s.11)  However, by removing the patient and going into hiding rather than using the proper legal process raises the question of whether the parent is appropriate as the nearest relative. She may think she is acting in the patient's best interests, but maybe she is mistaken.

The sensible thing to do is to get legal advice and use the legal process to remove the patient from the hospital, providing there is appropriate care in the community. It may be that hard-pressed community services cannot provide optimum care, and that hospital treatment is the only practical option in the circumstances.

AMHPs and mental health doctors are required to have autism training - if you want to query their clinical judgement or actions, use the relevant complaints procedures or the Mental Health Act.

Petitions and protests are no substitute for using the proper procedures