header-logo header-logo

Duty of care: inadequate safety nets?

18 July 2019 / Laura Davidson
Issue: 7849 / Categories: Features , Mental health , Human rights
printer mail-detail

How far does the state’s duty of care extend in protecting detained patients—both voluntary & involuntary—from self-harm? Laura Davidson investigates

  • Examines existing case law in light of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal.
  • A state should take certain basic precautions to protect a psychiatric patient from self-harm and suicide, whether they are voluntarily detained or not.

It was recently confirmed in Fernandes de Oliveira v Portugal [2019] ECHR 106 (application no 78103/14, 31 January 2019) that a state’s positive obligation under Art 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) applies not only to compulsorily detained patients, but also to those being treated voluntarily in hospital. However, there was a disappointing caveat. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) concluded that ‘a stricter standard of scrutiny’ might be applied to patients detained ‘involuntarily’ following judicial order (para [124]). Indeed, no Art 2 violation was found. In a partly dissenting minority opinion (MO), Portugal’s Judge Pinto de Albuquerque and Judge Harutyunyan describe

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