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]
Preview
PDF - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
123Kb

Official URL: http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/86.full

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:Faculty of Social Sciences, Law and Education > School of Law
ID Code:1665
Deposited By:Bartlett, Peter
Deposited On:24 Aug 2012 22:40
Last Modified:24 Aug 2012 22:40

Repository Staff Only: item control page