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

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.

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), https://doi.org/10.1093/medlaw/fwl027

• Journal Article Type: Article
• Publication Date: Jan 1, 2007
• Deposit Date: Aug 24, 2012
• Publicly Available Date: Aug 24, 2012
• Journal: Medical Law Review
• Print ISSN: 0967-0742
• Electronic ISSN: 1464-3790
• Publisher: Oxford University Press
• Peer Reviewed: Peer Reviewed
• Volume: 15
• Issue: 1
• 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
• Public URL: https://nottingham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1017184
• Publisher URL: http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/86.full
• 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