header-logo header-logo

Covert medication

24 July 2008 / Laura Davidson
Issue: 7331 / Categories: Features , Public , Human rights , Mental health
printer mail-detail

Laura Davidson considers the covert medication of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983

In recent times I have been involved in a number of cases concerning the covert medication of patients detained under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA 1983). Apparently this practice is more widespread than one might expect, with four patients in one particular hospital in receipt of it. As MHA 1983 permits treatment without consent, it is difficult to understand why there might be a need to provide it covertly. It is the author's view that in almost all circumstances covert medication will be unlawful and the practice will amount to a battery. It is liable to breach Art 8 and may in some circumstances reach the threshold for a violation of Art 3. Further, there are likely to be Art 6 considerations. It matters not whether the patient is consenting or non-consenting, or whether or not they have capacity to make decisions about their medical treatment. This article explores why by way of a case study and an

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll