27 October 1999

Comment

I can’t help but wonder why considering all the evidence around at the time as to the state of Lena’s mind (and the disclosure of those letters just adds to that wonder), why it was Lena was not Section during the last year of her life and that there were other reasons behind the Neurosurgery for Mental Disorder (NMD) going ahead.

I say this as it is a fact under the Mental Health Act 1984 - England and Wales that if Lena had been Sectioned at that time then the NMD could not have gone ahead.

After all, it would not have been the first time Lena would have been Sectioned so it throws up a few questions.

  • What had Lena done the previous time(s) that justified her being Section?
  • Why was her behaviour in that last year of her life any less deserving of her being Section?
  • Why was none of this looked into at the inquest?
  • Was the blame simply put on the Bronchopneumonia see contracted while in the sterile environment of a Hospital to protect the surgeons from being charged with (a long list of possible charges)?
  • Why is the umbrella term Neurosurgery for Mental Disorder (NMD) only ever used and not the actual name of the surgery if they have nothing to hide?

So did those that were meant to be treating Lena have reasons of their own for doing the NMD and so that was why the Sectioning of Lena that could have and should have taken place never did take place in that last year of her life.

The Sectioning of Lena may well have saved her life, but instead, she died and to this day the true reasons are unknown and nobody seems to care about the blatant coverup.

Robcamstone