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 the decision scathingly as ‘the result of a creative exercise

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

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll