I was looking at the news you published here about the woman who was obliged to do CBT under threat of sanctions, I couldn't help but compare it with the legal provisions that have recently come into force that allow a psychiatrist to impose treatment in the community on a patient.

How ironic that if my consultant psychiatrist, who will have spent at least eleven years from leaving school to train in his job, and also has a number of years experience, cannot impose on me a requirement to have CBT without a second signature and an appeals process, yet a decision maker with no psychiatric training in a government pilot scheme can impose the same treatment with no second signature and no automatic right of appeal.

Funny how the mental health charities got us all marching down to the Houses of Parliament about the former, but not the latter.

The DWP is only encouraging some claimants to try out CBT, they cannot be compelled to do so, as is stated in Steve's latest Newsletter.

Case law has established that a claimant has the right to refuse treatment.

Right to refuse treatment

R(M)1/95 states that a claimant is entitled to refuse medical treatment. Correct test is circumstances that apply to existing condition. See also CSDLA/171/1998. R(DLA)10/02 states that tribunals should consider whether refused treatment (unless reasonably refused) might mean that needs are not reasonably required. CDLA/3925/1997 adopts a similar line.

Ah, I misread it. Sorry.