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

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

CBI South-East Council—Mike Wilson

Blake Morgan managing partner appointed chair of CBI South-East Council

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Birketts—Phillippa O’Neill

Commercial dispute resolution team welcomes partner in Cambridge

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Charles Russell Speechlys—Matthew Griffin

Firm strengthens international funds capability with senior hire

NEWS
The proposed £11bn redress scheme following the Supreme Court’s motor finance rulings is analysed in this week’s NLJ by Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers
In this week's issue, Stephen Gold, NLJ columnist and former district judge, surveys another eclectic fortnight in procedure. With humour and humanity, he reminds readers that beneath the procedural dust, the law still changes lives
Generative AI isn’t the villain of the courtroom—it’s the misunderstanding of it that’s dangerous, argues Dr Alan Ma of Birmingham City University and the Birmingham Law Society in this week's NLJ
James Naylor of Naylor Solicitors dissects the government’s plan to outlaw upward-only rent review (UORR) clauses in new commercial leases under Schedule 31 of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill, in this week's NLJ. The reform, he explains, marks a seismic shift in landlord-tenant power dynamics: rents will no longer rise inexorably, and tenants gain statutory caps and procedural rights
Writing in NLJ this week, James Harrison and Jenna Coad of Penningtons Manches Cooper chart the Privy Council’s demolition of the long-standing ‘shareholder rule’ in Jardine Strategic v Oasis Investments
back-to-top-scroll