HC Deb 22 March 1922 vol 152 cc445-6
30. Mr. MILLS

asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the fact that Section 49 of the Lunacy Act constitutes (in default of action by the commissioners or the medical superintendent) the sole safeguard against detention at the hands of an unjust petitioner, he will take steps to see that the intention of the above Section is not annulled by the substitution (in the case of a lady con- fined for 13 years in Camberwell Asylum) of the names of two doctors nominated by the husband for the names of the two independent medical practitioners submitted in the application for her examination under the statute, with a view to her discharge?


On the general question I would refer to my answers of the 6th March and 13th February. In the particular case mentioned the Board of Control had two applications under Section 49 before them at the same time—one from persons who were not relatives and the other from the husband who asked to be allowed to send two specialists in mental diseases. There is no reason to think that the husband is not sincerely interested in the wife's welfare and the Board accordingly consented to his application.