header-logo header-logo

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

Duty of care: inadequate safety nets?

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll