Your Rights as a Mental Health Patient

🔊 Listen to Post

Disclaimer: Content Warning: This article contains trigger wording which may be distressing for some readers. This article is written for information and awareness purposes only and reflects the author’s personal experience and views. It does not constitute medical advice, legal advice, or professional guidance. If you are concerned about your health, medication, or mental well-being, you should seek support from a qualified healthcare professional. If you believe you have experienced discrimination or a breach of your rights, you may wish to seek advice from a qualified solicitor, advocate, or relevant support organisation. While every effort has been made to ensure accuracy at the time of writing, laws and NHS policies may change, and readers should verify information independently.

When a Medical Review Becomes Harmful: Triggering Questions, Ableism & Patients’ Rights Under UK Law

There are moments in life where you are already carrying as much as you can, and then something happens that pushes you beyond your limits.

For me, that moment came during what should have been a routine telephone medical review.

Instead of a safe, professional discussion about medication and well-being, I was asked a triggering question by a cluster pharmacist without warning, without sensitivity, and without any trauma-informed approach. That question didn’t just “upset” me. It forced open a door I fight every day to keep closed.

I live with OCD and have lived through trauma. I do not say this lightly. I have spent years building resilience, creating structure, and learning how to keep intrusive thoughts at bay.

In fact, this is one of the reasons I built my website: not only to help myself survive and stay strong, but also to support others living with mental health struggles who are often dismissed, misunderstood, or ignored.

And yet, despite this being known, I was treated as if my condition didn’t matter.

Editorial Code & Verbal Communication

Journalists, healthcare professionals, PIP assessors, and all organisations that communicate with the public have an ethical duty to consider how sensitive wording may affect individuals’ mental health and wellbeing. References to psychologically distressing topics can be triggering, particularly for people living with Anxiety disorders, Depression, Bipolar disorder, PTSD, OCD, or those with a lived experience of trauma. As part of a responsible editorial and communication code, professionals should avoid sensationalism, minimise unnecessary detail, and use clear, compassionate language that does not intensify distress.

Where sensitive content is unavoidable, a clear warning should be placed at the beginning of written communications, reports, assessments, publications, or articles (e.g., “Trigger Warning: This content contains references to self-harm and may be distressing for some readers”), so that recipients are informed in advance and can choose how and when to engage with it.

This approach is a simple but vital safeguard that supports vulnerable individuals, promotes inclusion, and reflects a duty of care in professional communication. This duty should also extend to verbal communications, including phone call reviews, medical consultations, and benefit assessments, where trigger warnings should be given before sensitive questions are asked.

A Two-Month Delay to a Serious Complaint

After the incident, I followed the correct procedure and raised a complaint with my GP surgery.

What followed felt like an all too familiar pattern many patients experience: delay, deflection, and dismissal.

It took two months for me to receive a response.

Two months.

If an incident is serious enough for a patient to raise a complaint, then time matters. Silence from healthcare providers can worsen anxiety, depression, intrusive thoughts, and fear, especially for people living with trauma disorders or OCD.

Stonewalling a patient is not “neutral”. It has consequences.

Refused Access to the Audio Recording or Transcript

As part of my complaint, I asked for:

• a copy of the audio recording
• a written transcript
• and notes connected to the incident

This was denied.

Instead, I was told that the only option was for me to physically come into the surgery and listen to the recording there.

This response is deeply problematic for two reasons:

1. It creates an accessibility barrier, particularly for disabled patients.
2. It may conflict with data protection expectations for how SAR information should be provided.

I have since demanded the information formally through a Subject Access Request (SAR) under the UK GDPR / Data Protection Act 2018.

Why the “come in and listen” approach can be unlawful or unfair

The ICO’s UK GDPR guidance makes it clear that people should not have to take extra actions or face unnecessary obstacles to access the information they are legally entitled to. The format should be accessible and suitable for the requester.

If a disabled person cannot reasonably attend in person, and the surgery already knows this, insisting on a physical visit can amount to discriminatory practice.

Ableism in Healthcare: “They Assume I Can Come In”

This is the part that must be said clearly:

Despite knowing I suffer from OCD, they assumed I am able to attend in person as if my disability was irrelevant.

That assumption is ableism.

It is the mindset that disability only counts if it is visible, physical, or convenient for the system. It is the quiet, institutional form of discrimination where people are pressured to “just comply” regardless of mental health barriers.

This is exactly the kind of treatment the law was designed to prevent.

Equality Act 2010: What Law Has Been Breached?

Under the Equality Act 2010, GP surgeries are legally classed as service providers and must not discriminate against disabled people.

Key legal duties breached may include:

1) Failure to make reasonable adjustments (Equality Act 2010, ss.20–21)

This is one of the most important protections in disability law.

If a disabled person is placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled people, the provider must take reasonable steps to remove that disadvantage.

NHS England confirms that reasonable adjustments are a legal requirement.

Refusing to provide a transcript/recording remotely and insisting on in-person attendance despite known disability barriers can fall squarely into this category.

2) Disability discrimination (Equality Act 2010, s.15)

This covers being treated unfavourably because of something arising from disability.

For example:

• needing remote access due to OCD/trauma
• inability to attend in person
• need for written documents in digital format rather than attending on-site

If a surgery penalises or blocks access because of disability-related needs, that is potentially unlawful unless objectively justified (and even then, adjustments must be explored).

3) Indirect discrimination (Equality Act 2010, s.19)

A rule applied to everyone (e.g., “you must come in to access your information”) can still be discriminatory if it disproportionately disadvantages disabled people.

Human Rights: Dignity, Respect & Private Life

Healthcare treatment isn’t just about medicine; it’s about human dignity.

Under the Human Rights Act 1998, Article 8 protects the right to private and family life, which includes aspects of medical privacy and autonomy.

When a patient is denied access to their own medical information or is pressured into unnecessary attendance, it can interfere with that right, particularly if less intrusive alternatives exist.

Duty of Care: What Was Breached?

GPs, practice clinicians, and pharmacists owe patients a duty of care.

This includes:

• acting in the patient’s best interests
• avoiding foreseeable harm
• communicating in a safe, professional manner
• respecting vulnerabilities and mental health risks

Triggering questions without warning can be harmful

If a professional asks a triggering question in a careless manner, particularly to a patient with known trauma or OCD, it may create foreseeable psychological harm.

That is not just “unfortunate”.

It can represent a failure to deliver safe care.

The GMC’s Good Medical Practice standards require clinicians to treat patients with dignity, listen, and communicate properly.

“Next Time You Must Attend in Person for Bloods”

The surgery also stated that the next time I have a medical review, I must come into the surgery to have blood tests.

Let’s be clear:

• Clinicians can recommend bloods.
• Blood monitoring can be clinically appropriate for certain medications.
• But there is no blanket legal requirement that a patient must comply regardless of disability.
• There is no law that makes a blood test automatically “mandatory” simply because the surgery says so.

Consent still applies

Medical testing relies on consent. Patients have the right to refuse, to ask for alternatives, to request reasonable adjustments, and to be offered care that accounts for disability barriers.

If bloods are genuinely required for safety monitoring, the conversation should be:

• explained properly (why, risks of not doing it)
• delivered sensitively
• discussed with reasonable adjustments (e.g., home bloods, phlebotomy alternatives, quiet times, disability support)

Not issued as a threat or blanket instruction.

What Should Have Happened Instead? Trauma-Informed & Disability-Inclusive Practice

A lawful, ethical, disability-informed response would have looked like this:

• a timely reply to the complaint
• acknowledgement of the triggering question and harm caused
• written apology if appropriate
• offer of trauma-informed communication going forward
• accessible provision of records (audio/transcript) as part of SAR
• reasonable adjustments documented in the patient record (including remote options where appropriate)

The NHS increasingly recognises reasonable adjustments as essential to care access.

Why I’m Sharing This

I am writing this because this is not just about me.

It’s about the thousands of disabled and mentally unwell people who are routinely dismissed, delayed, or pressured into situations that worsen their health.

It is about the harm caused by ableism in medical settings.

And it is about making it crystal clear:

• Disabled patients have rights.
• Mental health disabilities count.
• OCD is not a personality quirk; it is a protected disability where it meets the Equality Act definition.
• Refusing reasonable adjustments can be unlawful.

What the Law Says and How to Handle Controlling GPs

Living with a mental health condition can already be exhausting. The last thing anyone needs is to feel pressured, threatened, or controlled by the very healthcare system meant to support them.

Whether you live with OCD, anxiety, depression, PTSD, bipolar disorder, ADHD, or another mental health condition, you have legal rights when accessing NHS care, and those rights do not disappear just because a GP says something is “policy” or “mandatory”.

Here I cover the following:

• Your rights as a mental health patient
• What do reasonable adjustments mean in practice
• When GP behaviour crosses into ableism or coercion
• How to respond calmly and lawfully

Mental Health Is a Disability in Law

Under the Equality Act 2010, a mental health condition can be classed as a disability if it:

• Has a substantial effect on day-to-day activities
• Is long-term or recurring

This includes many mental health conditions, not just severe or visible ones.

Why this matters

If you are disabled in law, GP practices and NHS bodies have legal duties towards you. They cannot treat everyone “the same” if doing so puts you at a disadvantage.

Reasonable Adjustments: What You Are Entitled To

Reasonable adjustments are not favours, they are a legal requirement.

Examples include:

• Communicating by email instead of phone
• Allowing written medication reviews
• Avoiding triggering questions or giving a warning
• Flexibility around appointments or assessments
• Not insisting on one rigid format “for everyone.”

If a GP refuses to adapt processes and insists on “one-size-fits-all”, this may be unlawful.

Ableism in Healthcare: A Hidden Problem

Ableism often appears subtly in healthcare.

Common examples include:

• Assuming that if you work or study, you can tolerate stressful consultations
• Minimising distress because you “sound fine.”
• Ignoring how certain questions or formats worsen symptoms
• Treating mental health distress as an inconvenience rather than harm

Disability is context-specific. Someone can run a business yet still be unable to cope with phone calls, blood tests, or invasive questioning.

Assumptions like these are not just insensitive; they can be legally problematic.

Consent: You Cannot Be Forced

A key principle of UK medical law is simple:

No medical test, review, or procedure is lawful without informed and voluntary consent

This includes:

• Blood tests
• Medication reviews
• Monitoring
• Assessments

You have the right to say:

• “No”
• “Not in this format.”
• “Only with adjustments.”

Refusing something does not make you a “difficult patient”.

Coercion: When GP Behaviour Crosses the Line

Red flags to watch for:

• “If you don’t do this, we’ll stop your medication.”
• “This is mandatory, no exceptions.”
• “We can’t help you unless you comply.”
• Threats disguised as policy

This is not shared decision-making.
It is coercion.

Consent obtained under threat is not valid consent.

Withholding medication to force compliance may breach:

• Duty of care
• Ethical standards
• Disability law
• Human rights principles

Duty of Care and Harm

GPs have a duty of care to:

• Avoid foreseeable harm
• Consider the impact of the withdrawal of medication
• Take disability into account

If stopping medication is likely to worsen symptoms and this risk is obvious, the GP must justify their decision carefully. Blanket policies are not a defence.

Your Human Rights Matter

Healthcare must respect:

• Autonomy (control over your body)
• Dignity
• Freedom from degrading treatment

Being pressured, dismissed, or threatened because of mental health needs can undermine these rights.

How to Handle a Controlling GP (Calmly and Safely)

1. Put everything in writing
   Ask for explanations by email so there is a record.
2. Ask for justification
   “Can you explain the clinical necessity for this?”
3. Mention reasonable adjustments
   You don’t need legal jargon — just clarity.
4. Refuse politely but firmly
   “I do not consent to this, but I am willing to discuss alternatives.”
5. Escalate if needed
   Use NHS complaints procedures if concerns persist.
6. Trust your instincts
   If something feels wrong, it often is.

You Are Not “Difficult”, You Are Informed

Mental health patients are often conditioned to:

• Doubt themselves
• Feel grateful for bare-minimum care
• Stay silent to avoid retaliation

Knowing your rights is not being confrontational; it is self-protection.

Myth Busting FAQ

• Do GPs get money from the government if they get patients to have tests, etc?
• Do big pharma pay GPs money to prescribe their medication?

Short, clear answer

• GPs do NOT get personal payments from pharmaceutical companies for prescribing specific drugs
• GPs do NOT get paid “per blood test.”
• GP practices may receive funding for meeting NHS targets or providing services
• System incentives exist, but they are organisational, not personal
• Patients should never be coerced into tests or treatment because of funding

Now let’s unpack this properly.

1. Do GPs get paid by “Big Pharma” to prescribe drugs?

In the UK: No, that is not lawful

UK GPs are bound by:

• General Medical Council rules
• NHS England / NHS Wales regulations
• Strict anti-bribery and conflict-of-interest laws

What is prohibited:

• Cash payments for prescribing
• Gifts linked to prescription volume
• Financial rewards for choosing one brand over another

If this happened, it would be serious professional misconduct and potentially criminal.

What is allowed (with transparency):

• Educational sponsorships (e.g. conferences)
• Training materials
• Declared hospitality (strictly regulated)

These do not legally influence prescribing, and all interests must be declared.

2. Do GP practices get money for tests like blood tests?

Not in the way people often think.

GP practices do not receive cash per blood test.

However:

• They operate within commissioned services
• Some services are funded as part of broader contracts

For example:

• Chronic disease management
• Medication safety monitoring
• Preventative care programmes

The funding:

• Goes to the practice, not the individual GP
• Covers staffing, systems, admin, compliance
• Is not a reward for forcing patients into tests

3. What about targets and frameworks? (This is where confusion starts)

There are incentive frameworks — but they are not coercive by law.

Examples include:

• Quality and Outcomes Framework (QOF)
• Enhanced services
• Safety monitoring standards

These aim to:

• Improve population health
• Reduce prescribing errors
• Encourage evidence-based care

⚠️ Crucially:
These frameworks do NOT override:

• Patient consent
• Disability law
• Human rights
• Clinical judgement

A GP cannot lawfully say:

We need you to do this test because it’s required for funding.

Funding never justifies coercion.

4. Blood tests and “safety monitoring.”

Sometimes GPs say tests are needed for “safety”.

That can be valid only if:

• The medication genuinely requires monitoring
• The risk is real and evidence-based
• The patient is informed
• Alternatives are discussed
• Consent is freely given

For many mental health medications and conditions (including OCD and overactive bladder):

• Blood tests are often precautionary, not mandatory
• Refusal does not automatically make prescribing unsafe

Blanket rules = 🚩

5. Can funding pressures influence behaviour?

Honestly? Systemically, yes. Individually, no.

Reality:

• GP practices are overstretched
• Templates and protocols are used to manage workload
• “Tick-box” medicine happens

But:

• That is a systems problem
• Not a justification for overriding rights
• Not a defence against discrimination or coercion

When systems become rigid, disabled patients are disproportionately harmed — which is why the law exists.

6. The legal bottom line (very important)

Even if funding or targets exist:

• They do not override consent
• They do not override disability law
• They do not justify threatening patients
• They do not excuse harm

Healthcare must still be:

• Voluntary
• Individualised
• Proportionate
• Ethical

7. If a GP ever says or implies:

• “We have to do this because of targets.”
• “We can’t prescribe unless you comply.”
• “Policy says no exceptions.”

You are entitled to ask:

“Is this clinically necessary for me, or is this administrative?”

That’s a lawful and reasonable question.

Final reassurance

You were right to question this, but also reassured to know:

• GPs are not on commission
• Pharma cannot legally buy prescriptions
• Funding exists to support services — not to control patients
• Your consent always comes first

Final Thoughts

Healthcare should support recovery, not worsen distress.
Policies should adapt to people, not the other way around.

If you live with a mental health condition, you are entitled to:

• Respect
• Choice
• Adjustments
• Safe, ethical care

And you do not need permission to assert those rights.

If you need our help, just drop us a line:

Further Reading & Resources

• What is a doctor’s duty of care?
• GP Negligence Claims: Know Your Rights
• What can you expect from a good GP practice? – Care Quality Commission
• Duty of care | Advice guides | Royal College of Nursing
• Duty of care when test results and drugs are ordered by secondary care
• Getting copies of your information (SAR) | ICO
• Reviewing medicines – professional standards – GMC
• medication-review-guidance-sccg-v1.pdf
• What Is a Medication Review? | Pharmacy2U
• Blood tests – NHS
• Consent to treatment – NHS
• Blood Test Consent Laws: UK Regulations And Rights
• Blood Test Consent Laws in the UK: Your Rights Explained – EZi Network
• The Magistrates’ Courts (Blood Tests) Rules 1971
• Medical Screening and Surveillance Requirements in OSHA Standards: A Guide
• Can an Employer Require a Blood Test? – LegalClarity

www.FIRST4LAWYERS.com