Abstract
SummaryIn a landmark decision, the Supreme Court of the UK ruled that the state has a special operational duty to protect the right to life in informal psychiatric in-patients (‘Rabone case'), in sharp distinction to general medical or surgical patients. We will argue that the significance of this case is general, not just local, and that it exposes four important unresolved problems in mental health law: the place of decision-making capacity; the meaning of ‘informal’ admission; parity between mental and physical health; and the accuracy of risk assessment.
Highlights
The legislators drafting Article 2 after the Second World War had lived through the horrors of early 20thcentury Europe, with its death squads and extrajudicial state killings. These possibilities were in the minds of the legislators. Those that may arise in healthcare settings with regard to the right to life - settings where saving life and furthering the quality of life in the context of disease is the purpose - were much less in the minds of the European Court of Human Rights legislators
Further appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that there was an operational duty falling on the mental health trust under Article 2 to protect the life of Melanie and that the trust failed to take reasonable measures to do so
Our interest is in where the line for an operational duty under Article 2 should be placed in healthcare settings and in some significant general questions raised by the Supreme Court judgment
Summary
The history is taken from the High Court and Court of Appeal judgment before reaching the Supreme Court.[6,7] Twenty-four-year-old Melanie Rabone died by hanging on 20 April 2005. The hospital conceded the decision to allow home leave was negligent Both the High Court and the Court of Appeal judged that an operational duty under Article 2 did not apply.[6,7] Further appeal was allowed to the Supreme Court, which ruled that there was an operational duty falling on the mental health trust under Article 2 to protect the life of Melanie and that the trust failed to take reasonable measures to do so. The expert risk assessment accepted by the court was that the risk of Melanie dying by suicide ‘was approximately 5% on April (after leaving hospital) increasing to 10% on April and 20% on April’.5. The other expert had put the risk at 70%.6
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
