Q & G were both sufferers from alcohol misuse and dependency
Q had a complication - pancreatitis, a painful condition - but this did not help her stop drinking alcohol. Well into her dependency her husband killed himself. We are not told about the circumstances of that.
During her dependence upon alcohol she received and accumulated many other medications.
Q was twice admitted to the mental health services.
In 1999 there wee no specialist alcohol Units.Q continued to drink alcohol in hospital. Indeed she was once discharged with a supply she had obtained. She was allowed town leave. It seems her informal status led to the ward regime permitting her a degree of freedom and tolerance, that being the ward and hospital practice with informal patients. The sanction to be applied was 'discharge'
In her last admission she took up with G, a male patient who was an also an informal admission for alcoholism.
They continued a relationship outside.
Q killed G.
The report condemns the lax and disengenuous practice. She was given more respect than her conduct ,and her lies warranted.
Psychiatry recognises that those dependent upon alcohol will dissemble and deny reality with plausble excuses. Yet all they can react to 'rule breaking' is with discharge.
We cannot treat because the response shows there is no motivation to co-operate.
The Report condemns the lack of to and fro discussion with the family of Q. The family knew Q was abusing alcohol, and denying it when the staff did not seem to have those reservations about her assurances.. They knew Q&G were conducting an intimacy which the staff did not, or ignored.
What was the alternative.
Only a MHAct sectioning.
That was not considered allowable at the time for it was generally accepted that was specifically excluded in the Act schedules.
It would have been enforceable in terms of the threat to life when Q continued drinking even though she knew it risked her life with pancreatitis.