Anger over patient's electro-shock therapy at Tolworth Hospital

Mohammed and Khadija Rahman Mohammed and Khadija Rahman

A woman is planning legal action over claims her mentally ill mother was given electric-shock therapy at Tolworth Hospital without permission.

Khadija Rahman is furious over care received by her relative during two stays at Lilacs ward in the past two years.

Her mother was first admitted in the summer of 2011, having had psychotic depression diagnosed.

During that time she would visit and bathe and feed her mother, as she said she often found her wearing dirty clothing and was malnourished.

When her mother had a second breakdown earlier this year, the New Malden resident was reluctant to send her back, but relented after being told by social workers there were no other options.

During the latest stay, Miss Rahman said the trust went ahead with electroshock therapy without consent from either the family or patient, and then ignored pleas to stop the treatment.

Requests to have her Muslim mother looked after only by female nurses were also ignored, she claimed, meaning she was unwilling to come out of her room, and had less time outside during breaks.

She has complained to health watchdog the Care Quality Commission (CQC) after concerns raised to the trust in 2011 fell on deaf ears, and now plans to launch a lawsuit against the trust.

She said: “It was just appalling, sub-human, not something you would expect from a first world country.

“Her religious and cultural values were ignored. We as the family were ignored.

"This has stripped her of her privacy, self respect and dignity, as well as her human rights.

“We are now very serious about legal action because we truly believe this substandard care needs to be highlighted, particularly as our complaints were not effectively dealt with.”

Abedur Rahman, who is receiving treatment for a heart condition, said his wife’s treatment had been very stressful for the family.

He said: “They treated her with no dignity almost as though she were an animal. I am absolutely disgusted.”

A spokesman for South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust, which runs Tolworth Hospital, declined to answer questions about Miss Rahman’s mother’s care.

In a letter in response to the latest complaint made by Miss Rahman, the hospital said they went ahead with electro-shock treatment without consulting the family because doctors had “significant concerns” over Mrs Rahman’s mental health.

On being looked after by male nurses the letter said: “I recognise that when we need to cover shifts due to staff absences, often our agency staff are male, however the minimal standard of one female staff member is always in place.”

The spokesman said they take complaints very seriously.

He said: “We arranged a meeting with her the next working day to discuss the issues with her and also provided a full written response.”

Comments(5)

thatwasthatguy says...
2:08pm Tue 23 Oct 12

I would suggest the family proceed with caution re any legal action. The professionals, medics and social workers etc, generally know what they can or can't get away with. And, our MPs have made it difficult to prosecute them. They'll probably just say they did what they thought was best. And, 99% of judges will accept what they say. Plus, the family will be spending their own money on legal fees. But, the state workin' professionals won't be spending their money on legal fees, they'll be spending our money.

CCHR UK says...
1:52pm Wed 24 Oct 12

ECT has been cleverly cloaked in medical legitimacy: the hospital setting, white-coated assistants, anaesthetics, muscle-paralysing drugs and sophisticated looking equipment. All very medical, but in spite of these trappings, the brutality of shock treatment verifies that psychiatry has not advanced beyond the cruelty and barbarism of its earliest treatments.

Just as whipping, leeching and flogging are unlawful, this ‘treatment’ should be prohibited or prosecuted for the criminal assault that it is.

OKbyMe says...
10:28pm Wed 24 Oct 12

I think that those who have found it to be literally a lifesaver would say otherwise, if you have been there and nothing else works, it can be a god-send.
.
The issue is one of consent and should not be given otherwise.

thatwasthatguy says...
7:19pm Thu 25 Oct 12

Although a patient's consent is generally necessary, it is possible for a patient to be given ECT treatment without his or her consent, if an appropriate medical practitioner certifies in writing "that the patient is not capable of understanding the nature, purpose and likely effects of the treatment; but that it is appropriate for the treatment to be given". That is via section 58A(5) of the Mental Health Act 1983.

thatwasthatguy says...
1:44pm Sat 27 Oct 12

Sir Humphrey normally writes the law to make it easy for the professionals, medics and social workers etc, to do what they decide to do. Re giving someone ECT without the person's, or their family's consent. The professionals could say, although the patient refused to consent to ECT, he or she was too ill to understand the likely (aka possible) benefits. We decided that ECT was appropriate. After the event, a judge could say, the professionals are the "experts" and I am more or less obliged to assume they did what they thought was best. (Regardless of the fact that it may not have been necessary)

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree