HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS British Journal of Psychiatry Advances in Psychiatric Treatment All RCPsych Journals		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bashir, F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bashir, F.

European Convention on Human Rights

Specialist Registrar in Forensic Psychiatry, 1412 Junction Road West, Lostock, Bolton BL6 4EQ

Lepping’s view that rights under the European Convention on Human Rights were not ‘implemented’ in Britain until the Human Rights Act 1998 is incomplete (Psychiatric Bulletin, 2003, 27, 285-289). The UK has been a signatory to the ECHR since its outset in 1951. Since 1966, it has granted the right of individual access. The HRA ‘incorporates’ the ECHR into our law but ‘the view that that makes a sea-change is an erroneous one’ (Collins, 2001). Indeed, there are clear signs of influence by the ECHR in the 1983 Mental Health Act (Hewitt, personal communication - information available from author on request).

As these two examples show, Lepping may also be mistaken in believing that the HRA will now radically improve the condition and treatment of psychiatric patients.

In Hercegfalvy v. Austria a Hungarian refugee was admitted to an Austrian psychiatric hospital in a weakened condition due to a hunger strike. Over several weeks, he was force-fed, sedated against his will, handcuffed, fastened to a security bed by straps and a net, and secured by his ankles with a belt. The European Court held that none of this would breach Article 3. Where a measure was deemed ‘therapeutically necessary’, it could not be regarded as ‘inhuman or degrading’.

In HM v. Switzerland it was held that the confinement of an 84-year-old capable woman in a residential home did not breach Article 5, even though she did not consent to it. It was deemed to be in her best interests. This case could have profoundly deleterious effects on the rights of detained patients in the UK.

Finally, a number of serious concerns have been raised regarding human rights abuses that might be introduced by the Draft Bill (which purports to reconcile domestic law with the ECHR).

Contrary to widespread belief, it seems that the standards of the ECHR, at least in terms of protections for vulnerable psychiatric patients, can be really rather low.

References

HEWITT, D. (2003) Lecture notes, University of Northumbria.

HOUSE OF LORDS AND HOUSE OF COMMONS JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS (2002) Draft Mental Health Bill, 25th Report of Sessions 2001-02, HL Paper 181, HC 1294, 11 November 2002.

PER COLLINS, J. in R. (on the application of the Secretary of State for the Home Department) v. Mental Health Review Tribunal (2001) A.C.D. 62, para 77.

This Article Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via CrossRef Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bashir, F. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bashir, F.