Admission to a "madhouse" required certification signed by a doctor, and lists of detained residents became available for public inspection.

[4] These Acts altered the composition of the Commission in several ways, such as including barristers in addition to doctors.

[4] The Mental Deficiency Act 1913 renamed the Lunacy Commission the "Board of Control" and increased the scope of its powers.

It also aimed to make local councils responsible for the care of mentally disordered people who did not require hospital admission.

[9] The Act is divided into eleven "parts" (one repealed): I Application of the Act II Compulsory admission to hospital and guardianship III Patients concerned in criminal proceedings or under sentence IV Consent to treatment 4A Treatment of community patients not recalled to hospital V Mental Health Review Tribunal VI Removal and return of patients within the United Kingdom VII Management of property and affairs of patients (repealed) VIII Miscellaneous functions of Local Authorities and the Secretary of State IX Offences X Miscellaneous and supplementary Each of these parts are divided into "sections", which are numbered continuously throughout the Act.

The term "mental disorder" is very loosely defined under the Act, in contrast to legislation in other countries such as Australia and Canada.

The AMHP has a key role in the organisation and application of Mental Health Act assessments and provides a valuable non-medical perspective in ensuring legal process and accountability.

An Approved Clinician (AC) is a healthcare professional who is competent to become responsible for the treatment of mentally disordered people compulsorily detained under the Act.

A clinician must complete special training and demonstrate competence in their professional portfolio in order to be approved as an AC.

Until the 2007 amendments, they would almost exclusively have been a consultant psychiatrist, but other professionals, such as social workers, clinical psychologists and nurse specialists, are being encouraged to take on the role.

Mental Health Review Tribunals (MHRTs) hear appeals against detention under the Act.

[12] Discharge from hospital as a result of an MHRT hearing is the exception to the rule, occurring in around 5% of cases, when the Tribunal judges that the conditions for detention are not met.

Part II of the Act applies to any mentally disordered person who is not subject to the Criminal Justice System.

Commonly, in order to satisfy this requirement, a psychiatrist will perform a joint assessment with a general practitioner (GP).

A Mental Health Act assessment can take place anywhere, but commonly occurs in a hospital, at a police station, or in a person's home.

If the two doctors agree that the person has a mental disorder and ought to be detained in hospital in the interest of the patient's own health or safety, or for the protection of others, they complete a medical recommendation form and give this to the AMHP.

It can be implemented following a (usually brief) assessment by the RC or his deputy, which, in effect, means any hospital doctor, including psychiatrists but also those based on medical or surgical wards.

The Care Quality Commission consider it to be extremely poor practice to allow a section 5(2) to simply "lapse".

Section 136 is a similar order that allows a police officer to take a person whom they consider to be mentally disordered to a "place of safety" as defined above.

Furthermore, a person on Section 37 alone, who may have been convicted of a serious violent crime, can be discharged in the community at any time by his or her Responsible Clinician (RC).

Indeed, most people are ultimately given a "conditional discharge", which sets a statutory framework for psychiatric follow-up in the community upon release and provides for recall into hospital if, for instance, a person disengages from mental health services.

The Home Office is required to approve applications for these sections and decides what level of security in hospital is necessary for a particular prisoner.

A common example of this is a person who has a short-lived confused state as a result of a physical illness such as an infection or a heart attack, but who is refusing assessment or treatment of the underlying condition.

On the other hand, enforced re-feeding of severely emaciated people with anorexia nervosa is more likely to take place under the Act, because treatment is likely to be prolonged and is rarely an emergency.

Lastly, treatment of an attempted suicide, which has been made as a direct result of a mental disorder, can be given under the Act.

The main thrust of the Act provides the power to detain a person in hospital to treat their mental disorder.

Under Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, "guardianship" allows for a mentally disordered person to be required to reside at a specific address, to attend a specific clinic on a regular basis for medical treatment, or to attend various other stipulated venues such as workplaces or educational establishments.

[22] Amendments in 2007 gave those detained and under community treatment orders rights to speak to an independent mental health advocate.

Critics asserted that it would mean mental health professionals being "suborned as agents of social control".

[24] Supporters of more restrictive legislation insisted that dangerous people must be detained in hospital by doctors in their own interests and for public protection, regardless of whether they can be treated.