scholarly journals Paternalism or Power? – Compulsory treatment under section 58 of the Mental Health Act 1983

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (14) ◽  
pp. 90
Author(s):  
Paul Hope
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Court Of Appeal

<strong><strong><em></em></strong></strong><p align="LEFT">R (on the application of B) v S and others</p><p align="LEFT">Court of Appeal; Lord Phillips CJ, Thorpe LJ and Rix LJ; 26 January 2006</p><p>[2006] EWCA Civ 28</p>

Compulsory Treatment for Anorexia Nervosa: Compassion or Coercion?

1993 ◽  
Vol 162 (5) ◽  
pp. 679-680 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane Tiller ◽  
Ulrike Schmidt ◽  
Janet Treasure
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Anorexia Nervosa ◽  
Clinical Experience ◽  
Media Coverage ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
The Media ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Legal Opinion

Compulsory treatment for anorexia nervosa was recently once again a topic for discussion following the case of J, a 16-year-old girl who unsuccessfully applied to the Court of Appeal to refuse treatment for her anorexia nervosa. In this instance legal opinion was sought in order to clarify the Children Act 1989. However, much of the media coverage focused on the controversy surrounding the compulsory treatment of anorexia nervosa, under the provisions of the Mental Health Act 1983. There is a lack of research into the compulsory treatment of anorexia nervosa, so debate has to be informed by clinical experience.

R v Westwood (Thomas): diminished responsibility and disposals under the Mental Health Act 1983

2021 ◽  
Vol 72 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Mennim
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Mental Illness ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Diminished Responsibility

This is a commentary on R v Westwood (Thomas), where the Court of Appeal of England and Wales held that the judge had erred in assessing Westwood’s ‘retained responsibility’ as medium to high under the Sentencing Council Guideline for manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. Although the sentencing judge concluded that the offending was caused by Westwood’s anger, the Court of Appeal found the psychiatric evidence clearly indicated that the most significant factor was Westwood’s mental illness and that his anger at the time of the offence was a manifestation of his mental illness. Westwood’s responsibility was low, and it was appropriate to impose both a hospital and restriction order.  

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

scholarly journals Detained patients and the right to refuse treatment

2014 ◽  
pp. 59
Author(s):  
Paul Bowen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
Right To Refuse Treatment ◽  
The Right ◽  
Court Of Appeal ◽  
Right To Refuse

<p>R (Wilkinson) v. Broadmoor RMO (1) Mental Health Act Commission (2) Secretary of State for Health (Interested party) [2001] EWCA Civ 1545<br />Court of Appeal (22nd October 2001) Simon Brown LJ, Brooke LJ and Hale LJ</p><p>A detained patient’s right to refuse treatment to which he or she objects has been greatly strengthened by a recent decision of the Court of Appeal, applying the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, although in reaching its decision the Court of Appeal has posed as many questions for the future of the law in this area as it has answered.</p>

scholarly journals Compulsory Treatment in the Community: Is it Authorized under the Mental Health Act 1983?

1984 ◽  
Vol 8 (8) ◽  
pp. 148-151 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Rohde
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Recent Article ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Seriously Ill Patients ◽  
Seriously Ill

The Mental Health Act 1983 stimulated discussion on all aspects of compulsion in psychiatry. It has been the practice at St. Mary Abbots Hospital to use the powers granted by Section 39 of the 1959 Act and Section 17 of the 1983 Act as a means of compelling a small number of seriously ill patients to take medicines in the community, and I described this practice briefly in a recent article.

scholarly journals Compulsory treatment in the community: current legal powers

2002 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 180-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Steffan Davies
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Northern Ireland ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
England And Wales ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Mental Health Legislation ◽  
Health Legislation

Reform of mental health legislation has been under consideration for several years in England and Wales (Department of Health, 2000a), where the Mental Health Act 1983 is in force, and in Scotland (Millan Committee Secretariat, 2001), which is governed by the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984. The Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 is also under review, although the findings have yet to be published.

scholarly journals Mental health law in Denmark

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (4) ◽  
pp. 88-90 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mette Brandt-Christensen
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Psychiatric Hospitals ◽  
Legal Rights ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Health Law ◽  
Compulsory Admission ◽  
Trial Period ◽  
Mental Health Law ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Definition Of

In Denmark, the parliament passed the first Mental Health Act (MHA) in 1938. A new Act was passed in 1989, based on a thorough report from the Ministry of Justice. The 1989 Act emphasised the protection of citizens' legal rights in relation to compulsory admission, detention and treatment in psychiatric hospitals. That Act is still in operation, although it has been amended several times. In 2006 the definition of ‘compulsion’ was changed, and a 2010 amendment introduced compulsory treatment in the community for a trial period of 4 years.

scholarly journals Capacity, Treatment and Human Rights

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (10) ◽  
pp. 52
Author(s):  
Peter Bartlett
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
Compulsory Treatment ◽  
Anti Psychotic ◽  
Competent Patient ◽  
Mental Health Act ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
The Right

<strong><strong></strong></strong><p align="LEFT"><em>R (on the application of PS) v. G (RMO) and W (SOAD) [2003] EWHC 2335 (Admin). Administrative Court (10th October 2003) Mr. Justice Silber.</em></p><p align="LEFT">This is the most recent in a series of cases regarding the scope of the Human Rights Act and compulsory treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983. In particular, this case concerns the right of a competent patient detained under section 37 of the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA) to refuse anti-psychotic medication, and the scope of articles 3, 8 and 14 of the ECHR.</p>

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

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document