MHA vs Advance Decisions — MRCPsych Paper B MCQ
Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.
Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.
Reveal the answer and explanation
Correct answer: C — Lithium may be given despite the advance decision because the requirements of section 58 have been met.
Explanation lettering: D = shown as A · A = shown as B · B = shown as C · C = shown as D
B is correct. Lithium is medication for the patient's mental disorder, so the Mental Health Act Part 4 treatment provisions apply. A valid and applicable advance decision can ordinarily refuse psychiatric treatment under the Mental Capacity Act, but it does not prevent compulsory treatment authorised under Part 4 for a detained patient. During the initial three-month medication period, section 63 is generally relevant. After that period, section 58 requires either certified consent or SOAD certification; the stated certification therefore permits lithium despite the advance refusal. The Court of Protection and nearest relative do not provide the routine authority for this treatment. Section 62 is an emergency provision and is unnecessary where section 58 has been satisfied. By contrast, ECT under section 58A ordinarily cannot override a valid applicable advance refusal, except in specified emergencies.
Reference: Department of Health, Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice, chapters 9, 24 and 25, 2015. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/396918/Code_of_Practice.pdf