Change raises mixed emotions. In particular, fear associated with the unknown and doubt caused by change, are especially likely to occur when trans-disciplinary activity takes place, as it does in law's involvement in psychiatry. In fact, this activity and the change that it generates may even be perceived as a crisis by some psychiatrists. The Chinese write the word ‘crisis’ by combining the symbols for two other words. Those words are ‘danger’ and ‘opportunity’. Both factors are present at this critical time of transition from the old to the new mental health law in England and in other countries where similar changes have taken place.

The aim in the first part of this paper is to identify some of the major changes which have been enacted in the new English legislation and then, by way of comparison with the old legislation and with the approaches adopted in other jurisdictions, particularly the Canadian jurisdiction of Ontario, to try to articulate the shifts in values and policies represented by these new laws. This is not an easy task and, in itself, involves value judgment. In fact, the questions asked, the values detected, the range of values used as a base-line, and the relative importance the values are given, all involve elements of value judgment. However, some measure of objectivity is possible. In particular, one result of identifying and articulating underlying principles is that these principles can be judged, not only by the person carrying out that task, but also by others and, often, somewhat more objectively.