Suggestions for rendering Medico-Mental Science available to the better Administration of Justice and the more effectual Prevention of Lunacy and Crime

1868 ◽  
Vol 14 (67) ◽  
pp. 334-345 ◽  
Author(s):  
T. Laycock

That medico-mental science is often at variance with the doctrines and decisions of the courts of law is a fact too well known and too generally admitted to need formal proof. It is almost as generally assumed that the scandalous failures of justice, which too often result, must be attributed to the defective education and knowledge of the profession. It is alleged that, as a body, we are for the most part ignorant and theoretical in matters relating to insanity, and if not ignorant, then presuming, and often using the little knowledge we possess, rather with the intent to rescue thieves and murderers from the legal consequences of their crimes than to help the administration of justice. It is certainly a fact which many of us lament that the corporate bodies of the profession generally, including the general medical council, ignore the subject as a distinct department of medical education; and consequently medical practitioners, not being duly trained, do sometimes appear to great disadvantage in courts of law. Medical shortcomings are not, however, the subject of my paper, but certain fundamental defects in the principles and procedures of the law which render medico-mental science sometimes even worse than useless, and always less useful to the commonweal than it might be, if rightly adapted to the needs of modern society. Nor would it be difficult to show that some of the crime and folly which occupies our courts and fills our reformatories, prisons, workhouses, and lunatic asylums, is capable of prevention by a well-devised use of medico-mental science. As these matters are wholly beyond the powers of the profession, I shall ask leave to move at the close of the discussion that a committee be appointed, with power to take such steps as may be thought necessary to secure a thorough inquiry by the Government into the relations of medical science to the administration of the law in regard to all persons mentally disordered or defective, with a view to such improvements as may be practicable.

2000 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 85-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Lelliott

There is an unprecedented level of interest among the general public, the media and politicians in the quality of treatment and care provided by the NHS. Traditional methods for upholding the quality of medical practice, through professional self-regulation, are under attack. The General Medical Council (GMC) has responded by voting to introduce a process of revalidation for medical practitioners. If this is not seen to succeed, the Government could take this responsibility away from the GMC, and the Medical Colleges and Faculties.


2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 149-153
Author(s):  
Charlotte Cliffe

The General Medical Council clearly states that a doctor must offer help when off-duty, if an emergency arises. However, despite an English doctor’s professional duty to offer their assistance, this duty does not exist as a legal duty. Therefore, a doctor would not be held negligent for failing to offer help, outside of their clinical setting. This article will critically analyse the reasons behind this lack of legal duty, comparing the law to other jurisdictions.


2015 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 295-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith J. B. Rix

SummaryAlthough medical experts are valued in the administration of justice, the cases in the UK of Meadow and others, including most recently Pool, have all contributed to understandable anxiety on the part of doctors who carry out court work. This article uses an in-depth analysis of these cases and details of some other medical regulatory cases to draw out some lessons for potential medical expert witnesses. Although the most recent judgment in Pool leaves a number of unanswered questions, steps are identified that may be taken to reduce the risk of regulatory investigation by the General Medical Council.


2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-108
Author(s):  
Christopher Frank

From the mid-1950s until the early 1960s, there was an ongoing tussle between British employers and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) over whether to repeal the (1831-96) Truck Acts which established the right of manual workers to be paid in cash (‘coin of the realm’) and regulated employers’ ability to fine them or take deductions from their wages. Many employers advocated repeal, insisting that truck legislation was ill-suited to the modern economy, interfered with freedom to contract, and impeded more efficient forms of paying wages. Organized labour, through the TUC, countered that these laws protected workers from arbitrary deductions and prevented employers from imposing unpopular methods of paying wages (such as by cheque or bank transfer). This dispute resulted in the minor reform of the 1960 Payment of Wages Act. The (1959-61) Karmel Committee, which studied the contemporary operation of the Truck Acts, recommended repeal, though keeping some protection, but there was disagreement about who should be covered and what should be protected. The TUC, near the apex of its power, had proved the efficacy of the law and, given the inability to reach consensus, the government eventually dropped the subject for a generation.


2020 ◽  
pp. 78-120
Author(s):  
Sandra Clarke ◽  
Sarah Greer

This chapter examines registration of title, commonly called registered land, another fundamental reform of the 1925 property legislation. The first attempt at universal registration of title to land was the Land Registration Act 1925. This has since been replaced by the Land Registration Act 2002, which is itself the subject of a recent Law Commission report proposing reforms to the current law. Any transfer of land that is not yet registered will trigger registration of title, and thereafter the land will be subject to the law on registration. The government has announced a commitment to comprehensive registration of title by 2030. The chapter deals with the principles of registration; first registration of title; substantive registration; interests protected by notice, restriction, and overriding interests; alteration and rectification of the register; the correction of mistakes in the register and the payment of indemnity or compensation for mistakes. Proposals for reform are also discussed.


2015 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-38
Author(s):  
Andrew Collier ◽  
Maggie Watts ◽  
Sujoy Ghosh ◽  
Peter Rice ◽  
Neil Dewhurst

Aims and MethodsThe UK's Driver Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA) requires individuals to report if they have a medical condition such as alcohol dependence. General Medical Council guidance indicates that medical practitioners should ensure patients are aware of their impairment and requirement to notify the DVLA.ResultsIn a survey of 246 people with known alcohol dependence, none were aware of advice on driving given by medical practitioners and none had self-reported. In addition, 362 doctors, either attending a college symposium or visiting a college website, were asked about their knowledge of DVLA regulations regarding alcohol dependence: 73% of those attending the symposium and 63% of those visiting the website answered incorrectly. In Scotland, over 20000 people have alcohol dependence (over 1 million people with alcohol abuse), yet only 2548 people with alcohol problems self-reported to the DVLA in 2011.Clinical implicationsIf the DVLA regulations were implemented, it could make an enormous difference to the behaviours of the driving public.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document