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

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan—Andrew Savage

Firm expands London disputes practice with senior partner hire

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Druces—Lisa Cardy

Senior associate promotion strengthens real estate offering

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Charles Russell Speechlys—Robert Lundie Smith

Leading patent litigator joins intellectual property team

NEWS
The government’s plan to introduce a Single Professional Services Supervisor could erode vital legal-sector expertise, warns Mark Evans, president of the Law Society of England and Wales, in NLJ this week
Writing in NLJ this week, Jonathan Fisher KC of Red Lion Chambers argues that the ‘failure to prevent’ model of corporate criminal responsibility—covering bribery, tax evasion, and fraud—should be embraced, not resisted
Professor Graham Zellick KC argues in NLJ this week that, despite Buckingham Palace’s statement stripping Andrew Mountbatten Windsor of his styles, titles and honours, he remains legally a duke
Writing in NLJ this week, Sophie Ashcroft and Miranda Joseph of Stevens & Bolton dissect the Privy Council’s landmark ruling in Jardine Strategic Ltd v Oasis Investments II Master Fund Ltd (No 2), which abolishes the long-standing 'shareholder rule'
In NLJ this week, Sailesh Mehta and Theo Burges of Red Lion Chambers examine the government’s first-ever 'Afghan leak' super-injunction—used to block reporting of data exposing Afghans who aided UK forces and over 100 British officials. Unlike celebrity privacy cases, this injunction centred on national security. Its use, the authors argue, signals the rise of a vast new body of national security law spanning civil, criminal, and media domains
back-to-top-scroll