5,483
edits
Difference between revisions of "Mental Health Act: Involuntarily Admitted Patients (14:VII)"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Mental Health Act: Involuntarily Admitted Patients (14:VII) (view source)
Revision as of 17:06, 22 June 2016
, 17:06, 22 June 2016→b) What the Review Panel Must Consider
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
Desy Wahyuni (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 99: | Line 99: | ||
The review panel must consider the past history of the patient, including his or her past history of compliance with treatment plans. The panel must assess whether there is a significant risk that the patient will not comply with treatment prescribed by the director. Presumably, if the panel concludes that there is a significant risk that the patient will not comply with the treatment plan, it is open to them to conclude that ss 22(3)(a)(ii) and (c) continue to describe the patient (i.e. the patient may get worse if not compelled to continue treatment). Again, the MHA amendments have made the criteria for detention broader and it would seem likely that it will be more difficult for patients to end their detention under the MHA. | The review panel must consider the past history of the patient, including his or her past history of compliance with treatment plans. The panel must assess whether there is a significant risk that the patient will not comply with treatment prescribed by the director. Presumably, if the panel concludes that there is a significant risk that the patient will not comply with the treatment plan, it is open to them to conclude that ss 22(3)(a)(ii) and (c) continue to describe the patient (i.e. the patient may get worse if not compelled to continue treatment). Again, the MHA amendments have made the criteria for detention broader and it would seem likely that it will be more difficult for patients to end their detention under the MHA. | ||
=== 3. Through Court Proceedings === | |||
A person may apply to the Supreme Court for a writ of ''habeas corpus', which is a writ requiring a detained person to be brought before a court that will evaluate the lawfulness of the detention. This is most suitable where there were procedural defects in the patient’s admission and may be applied for as often as desired. However, note that Legal Aid is unavailable to a patient seeking to pursue this remedy, and the process may be cost-prohibitive. If the Court finds that the committing authority did not strictly adhere to the statutory requirements regarding committal, there exists an action in false imprisonment and a possible award of damages (''Ketchum v Hislop'' (1984), 54 BCL.R. 327 (S.C.)). | |||