Abstract
Objective: The aim of this paper is to explore the relationship between civil commitment under a Community Treatment Order (CTO) and competence to consent to treatment.
Method: A purposive convenience sample of 10 service users under CTOs were interviewed using the MacArthur Competence Assessment Tool for Treatment (MacCAT-T). Ratings were compared with the ratings of 10 matched voluntary service users.
Results: Seventy percent of the CTO sample were found to be incompetent according to the MacCAT-T, compared to 20% of the comparison group (p = 0.004). The proportion of the CTO sample found to be incompetent reduces to 50% if the subscale of appreciation is excluded (p = 0.004). Most people in each group would elect to continue their current treatment if given the choice.
Conclusion: Findings of this study suggest that mental health law reform introducing considerations of competence could lead to a substantially different group of people being subject to CTOs. If the CTO is carefully targeted and not used excessively, it is likely to be accorded qualified acceptance for most service users for whom it is used.