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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll