Andoh Benjamin
Law School, Southampton Solent University, Southampton, UK
Med Leg J. 2015 Sep;83(3):150-3. doi: 10.1177/0025817214554744. Epub 2014 Oct 7.
The nearest relatives of mental patients play an important role. They refer them informally or formally (by making an application for their admission) to hospital; they are consulted about applications for admission for treatment under s 3 of the Mental Health Act (made by Approved Mental Health Professionals); they can order, subject to a medical veto, the discharge of some compulsorily detained patients; they make applications to the Mental Health Review Tribunal, etc. However, choosing which is the nearest relative for this purpose is not open to even a competent mental patient but has to be selected from a prescribed list under s 26 of the Mental Health Act 1983 though a patient can initiate proceedings to displace their statutory "nearest relative". This has resulted in court cases, most recently JT v United Kingdom [2000] 1 FLR 909. Further, when an application for treatment under s 3 of the Mental Health Act 1983 is made by an Approved Mental Health Professional, s 11(4) of the Act requires that applicant, first, to consult with the patient's nearest relative. This issue arose in TW v Enfield LBC [2014] EWCA Civ. 362. This paper considers and comments on these and other issues and identifies two unsatisfactory features of the law and makes recommendations for reform.
精神病患者的近亲起着重要作用。他们会非正式地或正式地(通过申请让患者入院)将患者送往医院;在根据《精神健康法》第3条(由认可的精神健康专业人员提出)提出入院治疗申请时,会征求他们的意见;在有医疗否决权的情况下,他们可以下令让一些被强制拘留的患者出院;他们可以向精神健康复查法庭提出申请等。然而,即使是有行为能力的精神病患者也无权选择为此目的的近亲是谁,而必须从1983年《精神健康法》第26条规定的名单中挑选,不过患者可以启动法律程序来取代其法定的“近亲”。这导致了一些法庭案件,最近的一起是JT诉联合王国案[2000] 1 FLR 909。此外,当认可的精神健康专业人员根据1983年《精神健康法》第3条提出治疗申请时,该法第11(4)条要求申请人首先与患者的近亲进行协商。这个问题在TW诉恩菲尔德伦敦自治市议会案[2014] EWCA Civ. 362中出现。本文对这些及其他问题进行了思考和评论,指出了该法律的两个不尽人意之处,并提出了改革建议。