header-logo header-logo

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

Covert medication

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

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen—Liz Giles

Bell Yard Kysen appoints senior legal PR and ex-government communications adviser, Liz Giles

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott—Lee Edwards

Clarke Willmott boosts Southampton commercial property team with addition of partner Lee Edwards

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors—four promotions

Lime Solicitors announces four promotions

NEWS
The Attorney General, Ellie Reeves KC MP, and Solicitor General, Andy Slaughter KC MP, marked the 25th anniversary of Pro Bono Week by joining lawyers, charities, students and parliamentarians at events celebrating voluntary legal work
Witness evidence can be compromised by AI before a solicitor sees the draft, leaving safeguards focused on authorship incomplete
Possession claims are entering a new digital era, with procedural traps awaiting practitioners who assume familiar rules still govern every step
A polished legal defence may owe more to artificial intelligence than legal merit—and creditors risk paying the price in delay and expense
An indemnity costs battle with a £20m gap could reopen an important question: what weight should an approved budget carry?
back-to-top-scroll