An Ethical Debate: Second opinions: a right or a concession?

Publisher Website
Google Scholar
Abstract
My daughter, M, now aged 42, has been treated by a long succession of psychiatrists since she was 16 and has been called schizophrenic for at least 10 years. Three and a half years ago, while she was detained for six months under the Mental Health Act 1983 and in a depressing local hospital, a consultant at Maudsley Hospital said that she could take her immediately for assessment provided that her present consultant or her general practitioner would refer her. The consultant refused on the ground that he had a plan for her treatment and that it was “not clinically necessary.” Her general practitioner talked with the consultant and supported him. So M could not go to Maudsley. The consultant's “plan” broke down later, because M would not stay in …

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: