scholarly journals Misapplication of mental impairment under the Mental Health Act 1983

2006 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-70
Author(s):  
Anjum Bashir ◽  
Sheila Tinto

As Professor Eastman (2000) has noted: the law is fond of ‘using’ psychiatry for its own ends at times, but the Mental Health Act 1983 is an example of psychiatrists using the law as a tool of public policy. This makes their education in and interpretation of it all the more vital. The MRCPsych part II module ‘Ethics and the Law’ requires candidates to demonstrate knowledge of relevant mental health and human rights legislation, and to illustrate the appropriate application of such information (Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2001). We submit a masked case study that in practice seems to us a misinterpretation of the Act.

2014 ◽  
Vol 1 (12) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Law Society

<p>The Law Society has long campaigned for reform of the Mental Health Act 1983 (‘the 1983 Act’), which is widely recognised as out of date and not fully compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. However the Law Society believes that the proposals contained in the Draft Mental Health Bill 2004 (‘the Bill’) are misconceived and fail to provide adequate safeguards to protect the rights of people with a mental disorder.</p>


2019 ◽  
Vol 60 (2) ◽  
pp. 140-146 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Cresswell

This article provides a critical viewpoint on Loughran’s recent work in Medicine, Science and the Law on the causes of the rise in the police’s use of section 136 (s136) of the Mental Health Act 1983 (Loughran M. Detention under section 136: why is it increasing? Med Sci Law 2018; 58: 268–274). The rate of this rise seems significant: by 2014, it was five times more likely that a person in England would be detained in a hospital under s136 than it was in 2000, and the trend has continued to the present day. This viewpoint considers the significance of the s136 rise from the theoretical perspective of causal analysis.


2017 ◽  
pp. 749-763
Author(s):  
Michael Hazelton ◽  
Peter Morrall
Keyword(s):  

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee Edson P. Yarcia ◽  
Jan Michael Alexandre C. Bernadas

Purpose This paper aims to examine key obligations of states to persons deprived of liberty (PDLs) under the right to health framework in the context of COVID-19. As a case study, it also describes the state of health in places of detention in the Philippines during the pandemic, with an end view of providing granular recommendations for prison policy reforms. Design/methodology/approach Relevant rules under international human rights law related to places of detention were thematically analyzed to articulate the scope of the right to health of PDLs. To describe the state of places of detention in the Philippines, this paper relied on archival research of news from selected local mainstream and specialized media. Findings The right to health framework provides a foundation for the response to COVID-19 in places of detention. Key concerns include increase in the number of infections, vulnerabilities in physical and mental health, and the spread of infection among correctional staff. Long-standing structural constraints and limited health information compound the threat of COVID-19. The Philippines must comply with its human rights obligations to PDLs to effectively address COVID-19-related concerns. Practical implications Policy reforms in Philippine places of detention must include application of community standards on physical and mental health, implementation of emergency release and application of non-custodial measures for long-term prison decongestion. Originality/value This is one of the few papers to analyze human rights in health care in places of detention during a pandemic, as nuanced in the context of the Philippines.


Author(s):  
G. T. Laurie ◽  
S. H. E. Harmon ◽  
G. Porter

Author(s):  
Thomas E. Webb

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


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 ...


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document