The feeding by tube of a mental patient who was unable and unwilling to consent can remain treatment, and within the decision of the doctors. In the context of whether the force-feeding an anorexic was authorised by section 63, the Court of Appeal held that treatment falling within the definition in section 145(1) was ‘treatment for the mental disorder from which he is suffering’ even if addressing its symptoms or ancillary to trying to address the underlying disorder.
Citations:
Times 01-Dec-1994, Independent 30-Nov-1994, [1995] Fam 133
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Munjaz v Mersey Care National Health Service Trust And the Secretary of State for Health, the National Association for Mental Health (Mind) Respondent interested; CA 16-Jul-2003
The claimant was a mental patient under compulsory detention, and complained that he had been subjected to periods of seclusion.
Held: The appeal succeeded. The hospital had failed to follow the appropriate Code of Practice. The Code was not . .
Cited – B, Regina (on the Application of) v Ashworth Hospital Authority HL 17-Mar-2005
The House was asked whether a patient detained for treatment under the 1983 Act can be treated against his will for any mental disorder from which he is suffering or only for the particular form of mental disorder from which he is classified as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Health
Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.78057