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

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Pillsbury—Lord Garnier KC

Appointment of former Solicitor General bolsters corporate investigations and white collar practice

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Hall & Wilcox—Nigel Clark

Firm strengthens international strategy with hire of global relations consultant

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Slater Heelis—Sylviane Kokouendo & Shazia Ashraf

Partner and associate join employment practice

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll