Skip to main content

Research Repository

See what's under the surface

Advanced Search

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 Doc

Bartlett, Peter

Authors

Peter Bartlett peter.bartlett@nottingham.ac.uk



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.

Journal Article Type Article
Publication Date Jan 1, 2007
Journal Medical Law Review
Print ISSN 0967-0742
Electronic ISSN 0967-0742
Publisher Oxford University Press (OUP)
Peer Reviewed Peer Reviewed
Volume 15
Issue 1
APA6 Citation Bartlett, P. (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), doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwl027
DOI https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwl027
Keywords Mental Health Act 1983
compulsory treatment
Herczegfalvy
necessity
Haddock
Wilkinson
SOAD
European Convention on Human Rights
ECHR
Publisher URL http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/86.full
Copyright Statement Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://eprints.nottingh.../end_user_agreement.pdf
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.oxfordjou...rg/content/15/1/86.full

Files

R_(B)_v_Haddock_Casenote._edit_3.pdf (127 Kb)
PDF

Copyright Statement
Copyright information regarding this work can be found at the following address: http://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/end_user_agreement.pdf





You might also like



Downloadable Citations

;