Skip to main content
×
×
Home

Common Law and the ‘Code of Practice’ - a commentary

  • Matthew Jelley (a1)
Extract

The decision of the Law Lords in May 1989 that allowed the sterilisation of a woman with serious mental handicap (F. v. W. Berkshire H.A., 1989) is arguably the single most important legal development in relation to psychiatry in the last 30 years. It has far-reaching implications beyond the field of mental handicap and will affect the practice of all psychiatrists. The Law Lords used the appeal to consider “the startling fact that there is no English Authority on the question whether as a matter of common law (and if so in what circumstances) medical treatment can lawfully be given to a person who is disabled by mental incapacity from consenting to it” (Lord Goff). Quite clearly this encompasses a large part of psychiatric practice and promised to clarify much of the controversy surrounding consent and the incompetent patient. The decision that they reached has now been incorporated into the Code of Practice of the Mental Health Act 1983 which was approved by Parliament in December 1989. The effects of this are of huge importance, and it has extensive consequences for all psychiatrists and their patients by simplifying the legal aspects of treatment. The most surprising aspect of this whole issue, therefore, is the silence that has surrounded both the original decision by the Law Lords and the subsequent publication of the Code of Practice. The only reference to these in The British Journal of Psychiatry, or its sister journal, Psychiatric Bulletin, has been a brief letter outlining some implications of the Lords' decision (Lovett, 1989). This is doubly surprising as the Royal College of Psychiatrists has shown considerable interest in this debate, not least by publishing a book about it! (Hirsch & Harris, 1988). The purpose of this paper is to provide a background to the Code of Practice and to clarify certain issues surrounding the Common Law.

    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      Common Law and the ‘Code of Practice’ - a commentary
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      Common Law and the ‘Code of Practice’ - a commentary
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      Common Law and the ‘Code of Practice’ - a commentary
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
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.
References
Hide All
Collins v. Wilcock (1984) 3 All E.R., P.374.
Devlin, P. (1962) Samples of Law Making. Oxford: University Press.
F v. West Berkshire Health Authority and Another (Mental Health Act Commission intervening) (1989) 2 All E.R., P. 545.
Gostin, L. (1986) Mental Health Services - Law and Practice. London: Shaw & Sons.
Hirsch, S. R. & Harris, J. (eds) (1988) Consent and the Incompetent Patient: Ethics, Law and Medicine. London: Gaskell (Royal College of Psychiatrists).
Hoggett, B. (1984) Mental Health Law. Second Edition. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
Kennedy, I. (1984) The patient on the Clapham omnibus. The Modern Law Review, 47, 454471.
Lovett, L. M. (1989) Treatment for patients unable to consent. Psychiatric Bulletin, 13, 510511.
Williams, G. (1983) Textbook of Criminal Law. London: Stevens.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Bulletin
  • ISSN: 0955-6036
  • EISSN: 1472-1473
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-bulletin
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 2 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 13 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 2nd January 2018 - 24th June 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Common Law and the ‘Code of Practice’ - a commentary

  • Matthew Jelley (a1)
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *