Abstract
Purpose – The purpose of this paper is to explain a decision of the Court of Appeal about the duty an Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) will sometimes have to consult a patient's nearest relative, and to set that decision in the context of an earlier one. Design/methodology/approach – Each decision is examined in detail and one is compared with the other. Reference is made to the Mental Health Act 1983 Code of Practice. Findings – It will be harder for an AMHP to establish that consultation is not reasonably practicable, and it will be correspondingly easier, in some cases, for a nearest relative to obtain information about a patient or achieve proximity to her. Originality/value – This is thought to be the first time the two cases have been considered together or in their true context.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
