Ryan Christopher James, Callaghan Sascha, Large Matthew
Consultation-Liaison Psychiatrist and Clinical Senior Lecturer, Discipline of Psychiatry and the Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
Lecturer, Sydney Law School and the Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Australas Psychiatry. 2015 Aug;23(4):415-7. doi: 10.1177/1039856215590025. Epub 2015 Jun 23.
This paper aims to explain the meaning and implications for practice of the High Court of Australia's finding in the negligence case, Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna [2014] HCA 44.
The facts of the case and the law of negligence are reviewed before reporting the Court's decision.
The High Court found that the obligation upon doctors to provide the least restrictive option for care that was imposed by the, then applicable, Mental Health Act 1990 (NSW) was inconsistent with an obligation that might otherwise be imposed by a common law duty to have regard to the interests of those with whom a psychiatric patient may come into contact if not detained.
The Court's finding underlines the importance of clinicians documenting their clinical reasoning around why their negotiated management plan was the option least restrictive of the patient's freedom and most protective of his or her human rights.
本文旨在解释澳大利亚高等法院在过失案件“亨特与新英格兰地方卫生区诉麦肯纳”[2014] HCA 44中的裁决对实践的意义及影响。
在报告法院裁决之前，先回顾案件事实及过失法。
高等法院认定，当时适用的1990年《新南威尔士州精神健康法》规定医生有义务提供限制最少的护理选项，这与普通法规定的在不拘留精神科患者的情况下考虑其可能接触的人的利益的义务不一致。
法院的裁决强调了临床医生记录其临床推理的重要性，即说明为何他们协商的管理计划是对患者自由限制最少且最能保护其人权的选项。
