A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961
This case concerned the substantive prerequisites for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). The parties agreed that following the European Court of Human Rights ruling in Herczegfalvy v. Austria, treatment for mental disorder could be enforced only if it were ‘medically neces...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Published: |
Oxford University Press
2007
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1665/ |
| _version_ | 1848790649853181952 |
|---|---|
| author | Bartlett, Peter |
| author_facet | Bartlett, Peter |
| author_sort | Bartlett, Peter |
| building | Nottingham Research Data Repository |
| collection | Online Access |
| description | This case concerned the substantive prerequisites for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). The parties agreed that following the European Court of Human Rights ruling in Herczegfalvy v. Austria, treatment for mental disorder could be enforced only if it were ‘medically necessary’.1 At the core of the decision in Haddock was how this phrase is to be construed. In particular, did Herczegfalvy require a two-part approach to the issue, first identifying with some certainty the disorder afflicting the patient and then determining whether the proposed treatment was necessary for that disorder, or could ‘medical necessity’ instead be determined as a single, multi-faceted question? Also at issue was the court's appropriate process and standard of review in such matters. Because of developments in the factual evidence and in the relevant case law during the litigation, a variety of other factors were considered, most particularly the relevance of a review tribunal's classification of mental disorder to the court's view of an individual's diagnosis. |
| first_indexed | 2025-11-14T18:15:59Z |
| format | Article |
| id | nottingham-1665 |
| institution | University of Nottingham Malaysia Campus |
| institution_category | Local University |
| last_indexed | 2025-11-14T18:15:59Z |
| publishDate | 2007 |
| publisher | Oxford University Press |
| recordtype | eprints |
| repository_type | Digital Repository |
| spelling | nottingham-16652020-05-04T20:28:39Z https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1665/ A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 Bartlett, Peter This case concerned the substantive prerequisites for involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act 1983 (MHA). The parties agreed that following the European Court of Human Rights ruling in Herczegfalvy v. Austria, treatment for mental disorder could be enforced only if it were ‘medically necessary’.1 At the core of the decision in Haddock was how this phrase is to be construed. In particular, did Herczegfalvy require a two-part approach to the issue, first identifying with some certainty the disorder afflicting the patient and then determining whether the proposed treatment was necessary for that disorder, or could ‘medical necessity’ instead be determined as a single, multi-faceted question? Also at issue was the court's appropriate process and standard of review in such matters. Because of developments in the factual evidence and in the relevant case law during the litigation, a variety of other factors were considered, most particularly the relevance of a review tribunal's classification of mental disorder to the court's view of an individual's diagnosis. Oxford University Press 2007 Article PeerReviewed Bartlett, Peter (2007) A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961. Medical Law Review, 15 (1). pp. 86-98. ISSN 0967-0742 Mental Health Act 1983 compulsory treatment Herczegfalvy necessity Haddock Wilkinson SOAD European Convention on Human Rights ECHR http://medlaw.oxfordjournals.org/content/15/1/86.full doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwl027 doi:10.1093/medlaw/fwl027 |
| spellingShingle | Mental Health Act 1983 compulsory treatment Herczegfalvy necessity Haddock Wilkinson SOAD European Convention on Human Rights ECHR Bartlett, Peter A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 |
| title | A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 |
| title_full | A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 |
| title_fullStr | A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 |
| title_full_unstemmed | A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 |
| title_short | A matter of necessity? Enforced treatment under the Mental Health Act: R. (JB) v. responsible medical officer Dr A. Haddock, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed doctor, Dr. Rigby, Mental Health Act Commission second opinion appointed Doctor Wood, [2006] E.W.C.A. Civ. 961 |
| title_sort | matter of necessity? enforced treatment under the mental health act: r. (jb) v. responsible medical officer dr a. haddock, mental health act commission second opinion appointed doctor, dr. rigby, mental health act commission second opinion appointed doctor wood, [2006] e.w.c.a. civ. 961 |
| topic | Mental Health Act 1983 compulsory treatment Herczegfalvy necessity Haddock Wilkinson SOAD European Convention on Human Rights ECHR |
| url | https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1665/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1665/ https://eprints.nottingham.ac.uk/1665/ |