Few treatments are more controversial than the prescribing of injectable heroin (diamorphine) to heroin addicts. This practice is still banned in the USA and Australia, despite the serious drug problems in those countries. At present any UK doctor can prescribe injectable methadone for the treatment of heroin addiction; however, the prescribing of heroin requires a special licence from the Home Office. The National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse is the statutory body currently responsible for advising purchasers (local drug action teams) in regard to specialist services for addictions. They have recently commissioned and published guidelines for the prescription of injectables in opiate addiction (National Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse, 2003). This follows the report of a Government committee, which stated:

‘If diamorphine treatment could be offered to all problematic users who do not successfully access other treatments, we believe it could play a useful part in managing the social problems generated by this group of people’ (House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, 2003).

Luty (2005, this issue) performs a valuable service by directing attention to the new guidelines from the National Treatment Agency. He explains clearly why he thinks these guidelines are wrong. I was a member of the expert advisory group that produced the guidelines, and will therefore attempt to defend them (my arguments do not necessarily reflect the views of all members of the group).

Until recently, the UK led the addiction field worldwide as the only country to prescribe diamorphine for the treatment of opiate drug dependence. However, the approach was inconsistent, with development conducted in a haphazard and arbitrary manner (Audit Commission, 2002), with variation in criteria, individualistic approaches and many doctors ‘inheriting’ patients on these long-term prescriptions from other doctors. There were relatively few restrictions once the doctor had been granted a licence by the Home Office.

Historically, relationships with mental health professionals working in Russia have been difficult to sustain due to problems with access and perceived human rights infringements that existed earlier (Poloahij, 2001). This has resulted in many Russian psychiatric institutions having little opportunity to collaborate in international research or to take part in exchanges of information on service development. However, with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia has been brought back into spheres of international cooperation in healthcare.

It fell to me to review the services we provide in our hospital library in Perth, which in turn lay behind my decision to stand for election to the post of Librarian of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. This has involved oversight of developing services for our members and others, and this paper is a response to a request often made to us – what advice can we give to those reviewing their own services? This paper is far from being a solo effort, the professional staff of the College Library and Information Service, and what we dubbed the Virtual Library Committee (colleagues representing faculties and other interests, who have advised us in cyberspace), deserve much of the credit.

The function of the mental health review tribunal is defined in Part V of the Mental Health Act 1983. Together with statute and Common Law, it provides safeguards to those detained under the Act. The provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998 have strengthened these safeguards. The key articles in Schedule 1 of the Human Rights Act are 5(1)(e), relating to the lawful detention of persons of unsound mind; 5(4), providing that the lawfulness of such detention shall be decided speedily by a court; 6, providing for a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law; and 8, establishing the right to respect for a private and family life. The latter is relevant to disclosure, nearest relatives' rights, and treatment.

In April 2001 the College introduced personal development plans (PDPs) as the mechanism for achieving continuing professional development (CPD) objectives. We moved from an individual, retrospective points counting exercise to a prospective peer-group based activity centring on individuals' learning objectives (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001). The current CPD policy is due for review in 2005. It is largely in line with General Medical Council guidance, Continuing Professional Development (April 2004) and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, CPD: The Ten Principles. A Framework for Continuing Professional Development (February 2002), and major revision will not be necessary. Two significant changes will be incorporated in the new policy. The first is an audit procedure whereby a random 5% of returns will be subject to further scrutiny. This is a process audit and necessary for the quality assurance of the system as a whole (Bouch & Jackson, 2004). The second will allow us to complete up to 10 h of our 50-h minimum requirement for attending meetings, by engaging in online CPD activities.