A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961

Bartlett, Peter (2007) A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961. Medical Law Review, 15 (1). pp. 86-98. ISSN 0967-0742

[img] PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (126kB)

Abstract

This case concerned the substantive prerequisites for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). The parties agreed that following the European Court of Human Rights ruling in Herczegfalvy v. Austria, treatment for mental disorder could be enforced only if it were ‘medically necessary’.1 At the core of the decision in Haddock was how this phrase is to be construed. In particular, did Herczegfalvy require a two-part approach to the issue, first identifying with some certainty the disorder afflicting the patient and then determining whether the proposed treatment was necessary for that disorder, or could ‘medical necessity’ instead be determined as a single, multi-faceted question? Also at issue was the court's appropriate process and standard of review in such matters. Because of developments in the factual evidence and in the relevant case law during the litigation, a variety of other factors were considered, most particularly the relevance of a review tribunal's classification of mental disorder to the court's view of an individual's diagnosis.

Item Type: Article
Additional Information: This is a pre-copy-editing, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in Medical Law Review following peer review. The definitive publisher-authenticated version, Medical Law Review, 15(1) (2007) 86-98, is available online at: http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/86.full
Uncontrolled Keywords: Mental Health Act 1983 compulsory treatment Herczegfalvy necessity Haddock Wilkinson SOAD European Convention on Human Rights ECHR
Schools/Departments: University of Nottingham UK Campus > Faculty of Social Sciences > School of Law
Depositing User: Bartlett, Peter
Date Deposited: 24 Aug 2012 21:40
Last Modified: 24 Aug 2012 21:40
URI: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/id/eprint/1665

Actions (Archive Staff Only)

Edit View Edit View