Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T20:21:40.967Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Psychiatry for undergraduates: towards a solution

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Peter Carter
Affiliation:
North East London Foundation Trust, email: [email protected]
Hannah Bradbury
Affiliation:
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
Elizabeth Cowan
Affiliation:
Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Type
Columns
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
Copyright © Royal College of Psychiatrists, 2013

We were struck by the potential legal implications surrounding the discretionary conditions of a community treatment order, in particular social conditions such as conditions on driving, restricted family visits and checking mail, which are authoritarian in their approach. Lepping & Malik rightly pointed out that these conditions raise ethical issues. Reference Archdall, Atapattu and Anderson1

Article 5(4) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) sets out that persons detained unlawfully should be able to secure their release by petition to an independent court of law. The power of mental health review tribunals to order discharge from community treatment orders appears to meet this requirement. However, the tribunal does not have the power to vary the conditions of a community treatment order, and the patient does not have the right to appeal these.2 Severe restrictions which effectively amount to a deprivation of liberty would almost certainly be challengeable on human rights grounds with regard to a breach of Article 8 ‘Rights to a private and family life’.3 In many countries where community treatment orders are used, the conditions are authorised by the judicial system as opposed to the UK where the responsible clinician instigates the conditions.

We would like to highlight that responsible clinicians should consider both Article 5 and 8 of the Human Rights Act when setting conditions for the community treatment order as in our opinion this remains a likely area for a potential judicial review.

References

1 Archdall, C, Atapattu, T, Anderson, E. Qualitative study of medical students' experiences of a psychiatric attachment. Psychiatrist 2013; 37: 21–4.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.