Search results for ‘Subject term:"mental capacity"’ Sort:
Results 1 - 3 of 3
Coercion and human rights: a European perspective
- Author:
- RICHARDSON Genevra
- Journal article citation:
- Journal of Mental Health, 17(3), June 2008, pp.245-254.
- Publisher:
- Taylor and Francis
- Place of publication:
- London
The author reviews the effects of the European Convention on Human Rights (as incorporated into the Human Rights Act 1998) on the points at which external pressure or coercion in mental health care become legally unacceptable. Significant cases heard before the European Court of Human Rights which have served to define the limits of coercion are reviewed. The ECHR has set a high threshold of severity before it will regard coerced treatment as unlawful and it places considerable reliance on medical opinion through the notion of medical or therapeutic necessity. It also appears, so far, to attach little weight to the presence of a capable refusal. It is concluded that European human rights law currently fails to capture much of the coercion experienced by patients in practice
‘Rabone’ and four unresolved problems in mental health law
- Authors:
- SZMUKLER George, RICHARDSON Genevra, OWEN Gareth
- Journal article citation:
- Psychiatrist (The), 37(9), 2013, pp.297-301.
- Publisher:
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the UK ruled that the state has a special operational duty to protect the right to life in informal psychiatric in-patients (‘Rabone case’), in sharp distinction to general medical or surgical patients. In the case, 24 year-old Melanie Rabone died by hanging on 20 April 2005. The previous day she had been allowed home leave from a psychiatric unit where she had been admitted on 11 April. She had previous history of self-harm and attempted suicide. This article examines the implications of this decision for mental health law and for understandings of the nature of mental healthcare. The authors argue that the significance of this case is general, not just local, and that it exposes four important unresolved problems in mental health law: the place of decision-making capacity; the meaning of ‘informal’ admission; parity between mental and physical health; and the accuracy of risk assessment. (Edited publisher abstract)
Deprivation of liberty: Mental Capacity Act safeguards versus the Mental Health Act
- Authors:
- CAIRNS Ruth, RICHARDSON Genevra, HOTOPF Matthew
- Journal article citation:
- Psychiatrist (The), 34(6), June 2010, pp.246-247.
- Publisher:
- Royal College of Psychiatrists
The European Court of Human Rights concluded that common law, which had been widely used to hold and treat patients lacking mental capacity, was inadequate to satisfy the European Convention of Human Rights. This means that if a patient lacks mental capacity and a deprivation of liberty is felt necessary to provide the care required, common law can longer be used and a choice between deprivation of liberty safeguards and the Mental Health Act must be made. However, in this short article the authors examine how the Mental Capacity Act deprivation of liberty safeguards have been criticised for their complexity and unclear interface with existing mental health law. The authors suggest that, the new legislation, which was implemented in April 2009, is likely to pose a challenge to clinical teams.