scholarly journals The Consequences of Acting Unlawfully

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Kris Gledhill
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Health Review

<p align="LEFT">The Mental Health Act 1983 provides for detention and also for treatment which would otherwise be an assault. As such, it allows for interference with the fundamental rights to liberty and to self-determination. Particularly as it does so in the context of a branch of medicine which is often highly subjective, it is hardly surprising that litigation is occasionally resorted to by those affected who wish to challenge the legality of what is occurring to them.</p><p align="LEFT">The framework for this litigation has developed, spurred on in particular by the growth of public law and human rights law. As a result, mental health professionals have to be familiar not just with the court-machinery which is central to the Mental Health Act 1983 (which provides for the Mental Health Review Tribunal to determine the legality of the ongoing detention of a patient, and refers the issue of the displacement of a nearest relative to the county court) but also with the courts which deal with questions of public law (in particular the Administrative Court) and the civil litigation courts.</p>

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
East Region ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Health Review

Essential Cases: Public Law provides a bridge between course textbooks and key case judgments. This case document summarizes the facts and decision in R (on the application of H) v London North and East Region Mental Health Review Tribunal [2001] EWCA Civ 415, Court of Appeal. This case concerned whether the language of ss 72–73 of the Mental Health Act 1983 could be read in such a way as to be compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998 (HRA), under s. 4 of that Act, or whether such an interpretation was not possible. In the latter case, the court should consider making a declaration of incompatibility. This note explores s. 4 HRA declarations of incompatibility. The document also includes supporting commentary from author Thomas Webb

Solidarity

2021 ◽  
pp. 327-340
Author(s):  
William A. Schabas
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Other ◽  
Self Determination ◽  
Third Generation ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Healthy Environment ◽  
Right To Development ◽  
The Right ◽  
Collective Dimension

Some fundamental rights, variously described as ‘solidarity rights’, ‘people’s rights’ or ‘third generation rights’ are not fully reflected in the human rights instruments. Indeed their place within human rights law remains somewhat controversial although that does not imply that they are not customary in nature. Among them are the right to peace, the right to a healthy environment, the right of peoples to self determination, and the right to development. The main distinction between these rights and other human rights relates to the jurisdiction of human rights bodies. They have a collective dimension that is not present in the same way with the other categories of human rights.

The law

2009 ◽  
pp. 459-498
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Sexual Offences ◽  
Disability Discrimination ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Assessment And Treatment ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Disability Discrimination Act ◽  
Health Review

Mental Health Act 1983 460 Mental Health Act 2007 462 Compulsory admission to hospital for assessment and treatment 464 Emergency holding powers 466 Mental Health Review Tribunals 468 The Mental Health Act Commission 470 Sexual Offences Act 472 Disability Discrimination Act 2005 474 Human Rights Act ...

scholarly journals Why Do Approved Mental Health Professionals Think Detentions under the Mental Health Act Are Rising and What Do They Think Should Be Done about It?

2020 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 616-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Bonnet ◽  
Nicola Moran
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Services ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Social Risk ◽  
Social Risk Factors ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Impact

Abstract The number of people detained under the 1983 Mental Health Act has risen significantly in recent years and has recently been the subject of an independent review. Most existing research into the rise in detentions has tended to prioritise the perspectives of psychiatrists and failed to consider the views of Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs), usually social workers, who ultimately determine whether detention is appropriate. This mixed-methods study focused on AMHPs’ views on the reasons behind the rise in detentions and potential solutions. It included a national online survey of AMHPs (n = 160) and semi-structured interviews with six AMHPs within a Community Mental Health Team in England. AMHPs reported that demand for mental health services vastly exceeded supply and, due to inadequate resources, more people were being detained in hospital. AMHPs argued that greater investment in preventative mental health services and ‘low intensity’ support would help to mitigate the impact of social risk factors on mental health; and greater investment in crisis services, including non-medical alternatives to hospital, was required. Such investment at either end of the spectrum was expected to be more effective than changes to the law and lead to better outcomes for mental health service users.

Human rights

2015 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jamie Fellner
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Health Staff ◽  
Mental Health Staff ◽  
Health Practitioners ◽  
International Issues ◽  
Correctional Mental Health ◽  
Policies And Practices

In this chapter, North American and international issues are reviewed covering the range of human rights issues, challenges, and controversies that exist in correctional mental health care. This chapter provides a brief overview of the key internationally recognized human rights that should inform the work of correctional mental health professionals. Human rights reflect a humanistic vision predicated on the foundation of human dignity, which complement the ethical principles of beneficence and non-maleficence. The human rights framework supports correctional mental health staff in their efforts to protect patients from harm and provide them the treatment they need. Human rights provide a universally acknowledged set of precepts that can be used during internal and external advocacy. Mental health professionals should not – consistent with their human rights and ethical obligations – acquiesce silently to conditions of confinement that harm prisoners and violate human rights. They are obligated not only to treat inmates with mental illness with independence and compassion, but to strive to change policies and practices that abuse inmates and violate their rights, even those that involve custodial decisions (e.g. segregation, use of force, restraints). In short, for practitioners who want improved policies and practices, human rights offers a powerful rationale and vision for a different kind of correctional mental health services. The more correctional mental health practitioners embrace and advocate for human rights, the greater the likelihood prisoners’ rights will be respected.

scholarly journals Attitudes towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings: findings from a large, community-based survey of consumers, carers and mental health professionals

2016 ◽  
Vol 26 (5) ◽  
pp. 535-544 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Kinner ◽  
C. Harvey ◽  
B. Hamilton ◽  
L. Brophy ◽  
C. Roper ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Mental Health Service ◽  
Health Service ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Online Survey ◽  
Service Providers ◽  
Consumer Safety ◽  
Mental Health Settings

Aims.There are growing calls to reduce, and where possible eliminate, the use of seclusion and restraint in mental health settings, but the attitudes and beliefs of consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards these practices are not well understood. The aim of this study was to compare the attitudes of mental health service consumers, carers and mental health professionals towards seclusion and restraint in mental health settings. In particular, it aimed to explore beliefs regarding whether elimination of seclusion and restraint was desirable and possible.Methods.In 2014, an online survey was developed and widely advertised in Australia via the National Mental Health Commission and through mental health networks. The survey adopted a mixed-methods design, including both quantitative and qualitative questions concerning participants’ demographic details, the use of seclusion and restraint in practice and their views on strategies for reducing and eliminating these practices.Results.In total 1150 survey responses were analysed. A large majority of participants believed that seclusion and restraint practices were likely to cause harm, breach human rights, compromise trust and potentially cause or trigger past trauma. Consumers were more likely than professionals to view these practices as harmful. The vast majority of participants believed that it was both desirable and feasible to eliminate mechanical restraint. Many participants, particularly professionals, believed that seclusion and some forms of restraint were likely to produce some benefits, including increasing consumer safety, increasing the safety of staff and others and setting behavioural boundaries.Conclusions.There was strong agreement across participant groups that the use of seclusion and restraint is harmful, breaches human rights and compromises the therapeutic relationship and trust between mental health service providers and those who experience these restrictive practices. However, some benefits were also identified, particularly by professionals. Participants had mixed views regarding the feasibility and desirability of eliminating these practices.

scholarly journals Police and health operational staff perspectives on managing detainees held under Section 136 of the Mental Health Act: A qualitative study in London

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 88-93
Author(s):  
Arun Sondhi ◽  
Emma Williams
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Health Professionals ◽  
Health Professionals ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Framework Analysis ◽  
Therapeutic Environment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Therapeutic Interaction ◽  
Adverse Incident ◽  
N 93

Detention under section 136(1) of the Mental Health Act 1983 allows for the police to detain a person from a public place and “remove [them] to a place of safety” if it is “in the interests of that person or for the protection of other persons in immediate need of care or control.” This study examines the interface between police and health professionals covering the conveyance and transfer of detainees to a place of safety and on completion of the assessment prior to inpatient admission. One hundred ninety-six professionals were interviewed across police (n=38), London Ambulance Service (n=2), Mental Health or Emergency Department staff (n=63), and Approved Mental Health Professionals (AMHPs)/Section 12 doctors (n=93). The data was analyzed thematically using a Framework analysis. The conveyance and transfer of detainees was framed by various elements of detainee risk. Healthcare professionals cited clinical risk, risk associated with substance misuse, professional safety, culture of risk aversion, staffing issues, and fear of certain detainee groups as the main issues. For police, risk was discussed within the context of institutional or professional fear of negligence due to an adverse incident. It is argued that the negative framing of risk at this point of the detention process by all professionals creates a negative therapeutic environment for detainees. Whilst safety is an essential part of the detention process, these distinctions problematize the process for a detainee. The article argues for a more balanced framing of risk to establish a more therapeutic interaction between detainees and police and healthcare providers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document