Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T01:56:21.379Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Therapy, Battery and Informed Consent

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2018

Roger Ormrod
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In its present state the law has little to contribute towards the solution of the problems arising from the medical treatment of mentally incapable, but informal patients. This is because there are no relevant rules; there is no legislation governing the situation because Parliament has not acted; and there are no Common (i.e. judge-made) Law rules because these problems have never come before a judge for decision.

Type
Articles
Information
Bulletin of the Royal College of Psychiatrists , Volume 11 , Issue 6 , June 1987 , pp. 185 - 186
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, 1987

References

1. Goff, L. J. in Collins, and Willcock, (1984) 1. Weekly Law Reports,1172.Google Scholar
2. Wilson v Pringle (1986) 2. All England Reports,440.Google Scholar
3. Blackstone, W. Commentaries on the Laws of England. (1775) vol. 3, p. 122; and Lord Diplock in Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital (1985) Appeal Cases, 871.Google Scholar
4. (1985) Appeal cases, 871.Google Scholar
5. Canterbury v Spence (1972) 464 Federal 2nd. 772 US Appellate District Court.Google Scholar
6. Riebl v Hughes (1980) 114. Dominion Law Reports,3rd 1 Canadian Supreme Court.Google Scholar
7. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1937) 1, Weekly Law Reports, 582.Google Scholar
8. e.g. Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital (Supra) and Maynard v West Midlands Regional Health Authority (1985) 1, Weekly Law Reports, 635.Google Scholar
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.